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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary on-chain effects (settlement and attestation), the destination treasury, and a required signature. It does not cover failure modes, reversibility, or return values, but provides substantial transparency beyond a minimal update call.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and succinctly covering destination and requirements. Every sentence adds necessary information with no fluff.

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 description captures the essential behavior, destination, and prerequisite. It lacks details on return values or confirmation mechanics, but for a simple 2-parameter transactional tool without an output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the signature requirement and adds chain context ('chain selected at submission'), but does not add new meaning about the parameters themselves.

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 uses a specific verb ('Trigger settlement and emit the on-chain attestation') and clearly identifies the resource ('a completed job'). This distinct action contrasts with sibling tools like evaluator_submit_job and evaluator_get_job, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It states the tool is for 'a completed job' and notes 'Requires EIP-3009 signature for Base/Ethereum', providing clear context on when it is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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