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

The description explicitly says 'Read-only,' but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false. That is a direct contradiction of the tool's safety and mutation profile. Although the description adds useful business behavior about the 15%/85% split and pending_registration, the contradiction is a serious behavioral transparency failure.

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 description is compact and front-loaded, leading with the preview purpose and then describing the split and pending_registration handling. It is efficient overall, though the closing parenthetical 'can't pay an unverified project' restates the pending_registration reason.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the core financial split and pending_registration behavior. However, for a financial preview tool it omits parameter behavior and contradicts the annotations on read-only status, leaving an agent with an incomplete and unsafe invocation picture.

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?

The schema has one parameter, project_id, with 0% description coverage, so the description must explain its meaning. It never mentions project_id or clarifies whether it scopes the preview to a single project or whether omission produces a global schedule. The parameter remains effectively undocumented.

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 clearly states a specific operation: an automated disbursement preview that splits newly-accrued proceeds into a Viridis Conservation withhold and project payout. It does not name or differentiate itself from relevant siblings such as certify_disbursement, verify_disbursement, or settlement_batch, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

The description implies usage through 'Automated disbursement preview' and states that it applies to verified restoration projects, with unregistered projects surfaced separately. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no guidance on whether project_id should be supplied for a single project or omitted for a global preview.

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