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

The description usefully discloses that the three checks run separately and that computation is derived from stored evidence rather than recomputed inputs. But annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description never says what state a recompute overwrites or what happens when a check fails, which is a real gap for a destructive tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the cost signal first and the mechanics second; nothing is padded. It is arguably too terse to be fully useful, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the core concept (recompute + three checks) is conveyed. What is missing is how to identify the target settlement and what a destructive recompute does to existing state.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of 'settlement' (an untyped object) and 'settlement_id', yet it says nothing about either. In particular it never clarifies whether the two are alternatives, whether one is required in practice despite zero required params, or what fields the settlement object must contain.

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?

States a specific verb ('recompute') and resource ('a settlement') plus the mechanism ('from its stored evidence'), and enumerates the three independently checked components (hash, aggregate, result). This is enough to distinguish it from the mutating sibling settle_contract, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 leading 'FREE:' implies you should prefer this over a paid settle/recompute path, which is an implicit usage cue. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of what to do when verification fails, and no named alternative tool.

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