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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that unattributable amounts are returned as `unattributed` rather than being folded into other lines, and instructs the user to report this field instead of treating the breakdown as complete. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond a generic description, though it does not detail auth requirements or error handling.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the primary action ('Reconstruct a settled transfer unit by unit'). The second sentence provides valuable guidance about the `unattributed` field without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the purpose, the types of breakdown lines, and the special handling of unattributeable amounts. It does not discuss error cases or return format details, but these are less critical for this simple forensic tool. The description is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect and how to handle edge cases.

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 input schema covers the single parameter `id` with the description 'settled transfer id', and the tool description echoes 'settled transfer' but adds no new detail about the id's format, source, or validation. Given 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3; the description adds no meaningful parameter-level semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Reconstruct') and resource ('a settled transfer unit by unit'), and enumerates the output categories (destination payout gas, Robyn margin, subsidy). This makes it distinct from sibling tools like robyn_netting_statement, which focus on statements rather than forensic breakdowns.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use, what prerequisites exist, or how it compares to sibling tools. The only implicit cue is that it applies to settled transfers, but no clear decision framework is given.

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