Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond annotations, it discloses that the server is non-custodial (holds no keys or funds), the call is free/no-gas and requires a valid signature, the signer is the person's own wallet or passkey, and it names the return payload shape (settledDirect with amount, method, payer). This is substantial behavioral context for a write operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core instruction is front-loaded, but the tail repeats itself: 'Free with a valid signature' and then 'Cost and signer: free, no gas; signed by the person's own wallet or passkey, and the house never holds a key' say the same thing twice. Trimming one of these would tighten the definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values, but it helpfully names settledDirect fields anyway. It covers inputs, the endpoint, and the non-custodial/free profile; only minor gaps like idempotency behavior (annotations flag idempotentHint=false) are left to the agent's inference.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents all three parameters, including 'unchanged' bodyJson and the personal_sign output over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN. The description echoes those constraints but adds no new syntax, format, or edge-case guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action (complete the settlement record), names its inputs, and gives the concrete endpoint (POST /labor/work/:workId/settle/direct). It distinguishes itself from prepare_direct_settlement by framing itself as 'step 2 of 2' consuming that tool's BODY_JSON and MESSAGE_TO_SIGN.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly situates the tool in a two-step flow, telling the agent this is the second step and that the body must be passed unchanged from prepare_direct_settlement. It doesn't explicitly exclude or compare against sibling settlement tools like submit_token_settlement or submit_credit_settlement, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.