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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: it enumerates the four roll states, explains that the returned transaction is unsigned (no mutation by this tool), specifies the permission model ('anyone may send it, the prize always goes to the player'), and names the failure mode (REFUSED when no contract is served). Only minor traits like rate limits or batching behavior are absent.

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 dense but front-loaded paragraph that begins with what it reads and ends with the failure condition. The inline state enumeration is compact, though the parenthetical list makes the sentence heavy.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining the return value (one unsigned settleMany call for the settleable rolls) and the possible states. Combined with the covered single parameter and annotations, it is nearly complete; only explicit guidance on when to invoke it versus siblings is missing.

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 100%, and the single rollIds parameter is fully documented in the schema (format, range, comma-separated 1-50). The description only refers to 'each roll' without adding syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Plan the settle of rolls', reads settleableUntil per roll) and precisely describes the output: an unsigned settleMany call. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling plan_* tools (birth, roll, swap, task) without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it tells the agent the resulting call may be sent by anyone and that it is REFUSED when no contract is served, which is a precondition. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over the sibling planning tools or what state the rolls must be in to call it. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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