aps_aggregate_settlement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the aggregation process, Merkle commitments, residual buckets, and signed output. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or error behavior. The reference to a spec file is helpful but not explicit.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence adds value. It is efficient, avoids redundancy, and references an external spec without bloating the 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?

Given the complexity and lack of output schema, the description provides a high-level overview but lacks specifics on the settlement record structure or return format. The spec reference partially compensates, but more detail on outputs and edge cases would improve completeness.

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 has near-complete descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds limited new per-parameter information. It provides overarching context (e.g., half-open period) but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it aggregates a batch of Attribution Primitives into a signed SettlementRecord over a half-open period. It specifies the axes and residual buckets, making the tool's purpose distinct. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_settlement', leaving some ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description implies it is for creating settlement records, but without contrasting with siblings or specifying conditions, the agent lacks decision support.

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