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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the returned audit record (status, tx hash, oracle conditions, ESG score, Claude AI reasoning, timestamp), which indicates a historical snapshot and adds value beyond the safety 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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the action and object, the second lists the return contents. No unnecessary wording, front-loaded, and 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 simple one-parameter lookup tool with output schema and annotations already established, the description is complete. It specifies the input source, the nature of the resource, and the full set of return fields, leaving no ambiguity for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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% for the single parameter, already specifying the source (settlement.execute) and format (dpx_...). The description merely restates 'by settlement ID' without adding new syntax or constraints, so it does not elevate meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Look up') and the specific resource ('previous DPX settlement by settlement ID'). It distinguishes from siblings like settlement.execute, settlement.quote, and settlement.nl by focusing on retrieval of an existing settlement's audit record.

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 and parameter schema together provide clear context: use this to fetch a previous settlement's details, with the ID sourced from settlement.execute. No explicit alternatives are named, but the 'previous' and 'from settlement.execute' phrasing strongly implies the intended usage scenario.

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