get_cospend_project_settlement

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructiveFalse annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: centered_on restricts all suggested transactions to involve that member, and max_timestamp causes member balances to be zero at that date while ignoring later bills. This gives the agent a realistic model of the computation's semantics.

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 compact and well-structured with an Args/Returns layout. The first sentence states the core purpose, and every subsequent sentence adds parameter or return-value detail without fluff. It is appropriately sized for a three-parameter read-only tool.

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 description covers access requirements, all parameters, and the return shape including the structure of transactions and balances. Since an output schema is present and the return format is also explained, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of parameter documentation. It explains all three parameters: project_id as the project identifier, centered_on as the focal member whose involvement is guaranteed, and max_timestamp with its Unix-seconds format and cutoff behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb-plus-resource statement: 'Suggested reimbursement transactions to settle a Cospend project.' This clearly conveys what the tool computes and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cospend_project_statistics or list_cospend_bills, which serve different purposes.

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 clearly frames when to use the tool: when settlement suggestions are needed for a Cospend project, and it explicitly states the required access level ('Requires VIEWER access'). It does not enumerate alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool covers settlement, so the context is clear enough.

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