Aggregate Settlement Record

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: per-axis (D, P, G, C) contributor totals, balanced-Merkle commitments, and residual buckets pooling sub-threshold contributors. It does not disclose whether anything is persisted server-side or the key-handling/auth implications of passing gateway_private_key.

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, front-loaded with the core verb+resource and scope, then mechanics, then output nature. No filler. Slightly dense with undefined domain jargon (D/P/G/C, 'balanced-Merkle'), but every sentence contributes.

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 cryptographic aggregation tool with nested objects, no output schema, and four required parameters, the description adequately characterizes the produced artifact (fully signed, third-party verifiable) and the internal structure of the result. It omits error/edge behavior (empty receipt sets, sub-threshold threshold definition) and whether the signing key implies any side effect.

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 description coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents period bounds, receipts, gateway_did, and the private key. The description clarifies the period's half-open semantics but adds no syntax or format detail for receipts, and the axis names (D, P, G, C) are not tied back to any parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 and resource ('Aggregate a batch of Attribution Primitives ... into a signed SettlementRecord') plus the operating scope (half-open period [t0, t1)). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like aps_verify_settlement, aps_project_attribution, and generate_settlement without needing to open any schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the aggregation-over-a-period framing implies it runs after primitives exist and before verification, but the description never states when to use this tool versus aps_verify_settlement or generate_settlement, nor any prerequisite/exclusion conditions. No explicit routing guidance.

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