List settlements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain semantics (settlements are gateway-to-bank payouts) but says nothing about pagination limits, default date range when from/to are omitted, or the shape/volume of results — relevant given an open-world listing.

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?

A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the parenthetical definition earning its space. No filler.

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 could describe what a settlement record contains (amount, fee, settlement date, status) or that results are date-bounded. As written it is sufficient to select the tool but thin for interpreting the response in a reconciliation workflow.

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 75%: from/to carry YYYY-MM-DD formats and provider carries a gateway-id description plus an 8-value enum. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the resource itself, and 'count' has no schema description at all, so the one genuinely ambiguous parameter (page size? max results?) is left unexplained.

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 ('List settlements') and immediately defines the term as 'payouts from the gateway to your bank', which an agent needs since 'settlement' is ambiguous in payments contexts. It does not distinguish itself from siblings explicitly, but the siblings are almost all different resources (payments, refunds, subscriptions, providers), so confusion risk is low.

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?

'for reconciliation' implies the use case but names no alternative tool, no when-not condition, and no prerequisite. It is enough for an agent to know this is a reporting/reconciliation read rather than a lookup-by-id operation, but nothing more.

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