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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context: parallel execution of checks, the unified go/no-go decision format, and the inclusion of a 'ready-to-use settleBody'—all beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value: purpose, workflow replacement, and return payload. No redundancy or filler.

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?

With an output schema present (not shown but indicated), the description need not enumerate all return fields—yet it does. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it replaces, and what it returns. Combined with strong annotations and full schema coverage, this is fully contextualized for an agent.

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%, with each parameter (amount, from, to, address, lei) having a clear description. The tool description does not add param-specific details beyond the schema, but it does provide workflow context (e.g., 'settlement amount in source currency') that reinforces the purpose. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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+resource: 'Single pre-flight call before settling' that runs oracle check, compliance screen, and stablecoin routing. It distinguishes itself from the multi-step process by explicitly noting it 'Replaces the 3-step oracle → screen → route loop,' making its unique role 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?

The description provides explicit context for when to use the tool: 'before settling.' It also names the alternative workflow it replaces ('the 3-step oracle → screen → route loop'), giving the agent clear guidance on choosing this tool over the sequential process or related sibling tools like settlement.execute.

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