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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this is a state-changing action (authorize a payout), the exact gating condition (only if the digest verifies GREEN), the auth/entitlement requirement ('ledger'), and a rate limit (3 free calls/day). It stops short of a 5 because it doesn't say what happens on a RED result (no partial state, retry/idempotency) or whether an authorized payout is reversible.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: product/entitlement tag, then core gating mechanic, then quota. Every sentence is load-bearing, though the entitlement ('ledger') is stated twice, once in the bracket tag and again in the final clause.

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 payout-authorizing mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested 'inputs' object, the description covers the gating logic and quota well but omits return-value shape (status, digest echo, payout reference) and failure-mode behavior, which the agent must guess.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the gating relationship between claimed_digest and the payout but adds no format, digest-algorithm, or nested payload structure detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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+resource: recompute the work digest and conditionally authorize a payout for settlement. The gating rule ('No proof, no payout') makes the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with nearby siblings like escrow_release or audit_work_claim, so it stops short of a 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?

The proof-gating condition implies when to call it (only when you have a claimed digest to verify before payout), and the quota line sets a usage constraint. However, it never says when NOT to use it or names an alternative tool for adjacent flows (escrow_release, audit_work_claim), leaving routing to inference.

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