List invoice settlements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, return format, or whether settlements differ from payments. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 words. It is efficient but minimal, lacking context that could make it more helpful. It earns its place but is not richly 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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what a settlement is and what the response contains, but it does not. It also fails to provide usage context or distinguish this listing from invoice payments. The tool is not fully specified for an agent to invoke correctly in ambiguous situations.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter documented. The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Lists settlements on an invoice.' This clearly identifies the operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bokio_list_invoice_payments or bokio_get_invoice_settlement, relying on the tool name for distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention bokio_get_invoice_settlement for retrieving a single settlement, nor does it clarify the relationship to bokio_list_invoice_payments. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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