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

Beyond the annotations (which confirm it is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation), the description provides critical operational context, specifying that the tool handles both past results (settlement details) and present/future states (settlement windows).

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 definition is highly efficient, delivering maximum informational density in a single, well-structured sentence without redundancy.

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?

Given the simple 1-parameter input schema and the richness of the annotations, the description is perfectly complete. It provides all the necessary context for an AI agent to know exactly when and why to invoke this specific tool.

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 defines the `market` type, but the description adds crucial semantics by providing examples (e.g., 'NO-NVDA') and clarifying that the input can be either a market address or a symbol, greatly aiding parameter interpretation.

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 precisely defines the dual purpose of the tool: retrieving historical settlement data (round id, price, etc.) or checking the current status and future schedule of settlement windows. This is highly specific and clearly distinguishes it from list-based or preparation tools in the sibling set.

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?

While it doesn't explicitly contrast against every sibling, it establishes a clear domain for use—settlement status and historical records—which implicitly guides the agent's use case away from position management or trade preparation tools.

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