generate_settlement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the output's cryptographic properties (Merkle-committed, signed) but does not explain side effects, permissions, error behavior, or the practical implications of calling a deprecated tool. This is similar to the update_drive example where essential operational details were missing.

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 sentence with a deprecation prefix, containing zero wasted words. Every element either delivers the warning or states the action, making it highly concise and effectively structured.

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?

The tool is complex—settlement generation—yet the description is terse. There is no output schema, no annotations, and no mention of prerequisites, validation, or consequences of using a deprecated tool. The simple string schema does not compensate for the missing operational context, leaving the agent underinformed about the practical usage.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions (startDate, endDate, periodLabel), so the description adds no parameter-level semantics. The baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%, and the description does not need to compensate.

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 clearly states the tool 'Generate a Merkle-committed, signed settlement record for a period,' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like aps_verify_settlement and aps_aggregate_settlement, which focus on verification or aggregation rather than generation.

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 description explicitly marks the tool as deprecated and instructs to use the gateway.aeoess.com REST API instead. This provides a clear when-not-to-use directive and an alternative, satisfying the highest bar for usage guidance.

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