Settle Up profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the bar is low. The description adds useful context that the result may be absent ('if they have one'), but says nothing about auth, error shapes, or rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that defines the resource and its payload with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a no-argument read operation.

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 does explain what the return represents (payment link/handle) and that it may not exist. It omits explicit null/empty-return behavior and response structure, which is a minor gap for a read tool whose annotations already cover safety.

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 are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the structured fields, though no extra semantic detail is needed.

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 (Returns) and resource (account holder's Settle Up profile), and even disambiguates the payload as a Starling payment link/handle. It does not differentiate itself from any sibling tool, 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 only usage hint is the conditional 'if they have one,' which describes the result rather than when to call the tool. No alternatives are named and no when-to-use context is given.

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