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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, closed-world operation, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds useful behavior: most-settled-first ordering, a special mode when `word` is supplied, and offset paging. However, it leaves undefined what "settled" means, whether results are per entity, and what the response structure looks like.

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 short and front-loads the main topic, but it is dense with domain jargon and ends with the fragment "offset pages." It avoids bloat, but clarity suffers from its terse, note-like phrasing.

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 seven parameters, only 14% schema description coverage, no output schema, and no required parameters, the description is too sparse. It covers a few behavioral details but does not provide enough context for an agent to understand the full input space or expected results.

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 very low (14%), so the description must compensate. It explains the `word` parameter's conditional behavior and `offset` paging, and implies `entity`, but it leaves `q`, `limit`, `format`, and `symbol` undocumented in both schema and description.

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 names the resource ("Settlement history") and scope ("an entity's words") with ordering, but it lacks an explicit action verb and relies on undefined domain terms like "settled" and "settlement." It also does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as `word` or `entity`, leaving the purpose only partially clear.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The only conditional hint is "with word, every settled listing of it," which describes a parameter effect rather than usage selection.

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