owp_get_settlement_readiness

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does provide a meaningful limitation ('this does not prove payment or settlement') and clarifies the tool derives readiness only. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as read-only status, potential side effects, permissions, or error conditions.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value, particularly the critical caveat about not proving payment or settlement.

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 simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description does not necessarily need to explain return values. However, it lacks context about what 'readiness' means, what the ledger parameter should be, and how this maps to the broader settlement workflow, making it minimally adequate.

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%, and the description does not explain the sole 'ledger' parameter at all. Since the description must compensate for the missing schema documentation and does not, parameter semantics are weak.

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 states a clear action ('derive readiness') and a specific resource ('settlement readiness'), and it distinguishes this tool from verification/proof tools by explicitly saying it 'does not prove payment or settlement.' However, it does not define what 'readiness' means, leaving some ambiguity about the exact output.

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 implies that this tool should be used when readiness alone is needed and not for proving payment or settlement. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide detailed when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, but the caveat gives some contextual direction.

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