company_settlements

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses that supplied proofs are verified and that provider effects remain external, but it leaves unclear whether advancement is reversible, what verification failure means, what state changes occur, or what permissions are required.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that names the action and resource immediately. The second clause is terse but adds a behavioral boundary, so there is little wasted text.

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 7-parameter lifecycle tool with no annotations and no parameter documentation, this is too thin. It omits operation values, proof payload structure, prerequisites, and the mechanics of advancing a settlement; the output schema may cover return values, but not invocation semantics.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to explain project_id, bundle_json, operation, payload_json, and the other fields. It only obliquely references 'proofs' and does not map any parameter to inspection versus advancement or to required input formats.

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 identifies the resource (settlements) and two supported modes (inspect or advance), and adds lifecycle scoping. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like company_settle_dispatch or company_claims, so it stops short of full sibling discrimination.

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?

No when-to-use or alternative routing guidance is provided. 'Scoped lifecycle' hints at context but does not state when inspection versus advancement should be chosen, which operation to use, or when a sibling tool should be preferred.

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