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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description then adds substantial behavior beyond that: it refuses unobserved decisions/auctions, explains the observation precondition for settlement, returns closeAt in UTC and a result page, and reports the 'reads bar' (5 right, 0 wrong). The jargon ('settleable', 'reads bar') is not fully defined, which keeps it from a 5.

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 is front-loaded as a leading question, followed by extraction logic, settlement preconditions, and source health. It is dense but every sentence adds information; the main cost is a long, clause-heavy middle sentence that could be tightened.

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, the description must convey return semantics, and it does: settleability verdict, timing, source, closeAt in UTC, and result page, plus a refusal case. It stops short of describing the exact response shape or fields, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including examples, so the schema carries the documentation burden. The description adds that it extracts the bank/issuer, tenor, and date from the text, but no syntax or format guidance beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high-coverage schemas.

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 states a concrete function: parse a natural-language question about a rate decision or bond auction and report whether it is settleable, when, and on which source. That is a specific verb+resource and goes well beyond the tautological title. It does not explicitly name a sibling (e.g., resolution_sources) to differentiate, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you have a question text and need to know if it can be settled and by what source. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternatives among siblings like resolution_sources or bank_status, so the agent must infer routing. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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