aps_verify_settlement

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It explains the verification steps, emphasizes S3 conservation, and details return format. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, and lacks information on permissions 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?

Three sentences with no redundancy. First sentence states purpose, second adds key insight about S3, third explains return and optional parameter. Each sentence is essential and efficiently 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?

Covers main verification steps, return format, and optional cross-check. No output schema exists, but return values are described. Could be slightly more detailed about required fields in the record object, but overall adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 base is 3. Description adds marginal value by explaining the purpose of input_receipts (cross-check) but does not expand on record or gateway_public_key beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool verifies a signed SettlementRecord under S1-S5 checks, specifying verb and resource. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling verification tools, the name and content are specific enough.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Mentions optional inputReceipts for cross-check but does not discuss prerequisites or exclusions.

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