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

Annotations already declare a safe read, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real value: it explains the provenance of the data and, critically, the confidence semantics of each status value (settled only when a settlement read confirms release; reported_released when only the milestone record claims it; simulated for a mock escrow). That is exactly the kind of interpretation guidance annotations cannot convey.

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 purpose and the status-semantics parenthetical are front-loaded, and every listed field earns its place because there is no output schema. It is, however, a single run-on sentence enumerating a dozen fields without grouping, which slightly hurts scannability.

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 no output schema, enumerating return fields and defining status values is essential, and the description does this thoroughly, including the nullable-currency caveat and the asOf timestamp. Minor gaps remain on what container fields like escrow, milestones, and notices actually hold.

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?

A single jobId parameter is fully documented (100% schema coverage) and the description adds nothing about it, which is the expected baseline. No enum, format, or lookup hints are given 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a job's settlement status') and even narrows the source ('from its own escrow records'), which helps distinguish it from get_escrow/get_settlement_status. It never explicitly routes against those siblings, so an agent still has to infer which settlement-related getter to call.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance, and the sibling set contains several close alternatives (get_settlement_status, get_escrow, get_settlement_epochs, get_job) that go unmentioned. The agent must guess based on the name alone.

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