Ledger movements covered by a settlement

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds that results cover only movements up to the settlement cutoff and that they are the movements the settlement accounts for, which clarifies scope beyond annotations; it does not cover pagination or return format.

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 short and front-loads the scope before the reconciliation use case. The opening sentence repeats the title almost verbatim, which is minor redundancy, but the rest is efficient.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool with rich annotations, the description supplies enough context to understand what is returned at a conceptual level. It could mention pagination if the endpoint paginates, and return format details are absent, but no output schema is provided.

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% for the single id parameter, and the schema documents the stl_ prefix. The description does not add further meaning about the id beyond saying the tool is settlement-scoped.

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 identifies the resource as ledger movements covered by a settlement and states the scope: movements of available balance up to the settlement cutoff. It distinguishes this from get_settlement by focusing on the movements behind the settlement rather than the settlement record itself, though it never explicitly names the sibling.

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?

It gives a clear use case: reconciling a payout against the payments and transfers behind it. It does not explain when to use list_settlements or get_settlement instead, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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