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

Annotations declare this is a non-read, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the server is non-custodial ('holds no keys, no funds and no tokens'), the action is free with a valid signature, and it describes the response's key fields (settledIn, chain, token, atomic amount, payer).

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the exact required inputs and their provenance, the second gives endpoint and trust context, and the third covers cost and return value. Every sentence earns its place.

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 is complete for a submission tool: it explains the prerequisite, the required inputs, the endpoint, the cost model, the server's non-custodial nature, and the response content. With an output schema present and all parameters documented, nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it 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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters adequately. The description reinforces the critical requirement that bodyJson must be passed UNCHANGED and that signature comes from the wallet over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN, but adds little beyond what the schema properties already state.

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 uses a specific action ('Complete the record'), names the resource (token settlement), and identifies the exact endpoint POST /labor/work/:workId/settle/token. It clearly differentiates from prepare_token_settlement by being 'step 2 of 2' and by requiring the previously prepared body unchanged.

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 gives clear workflow context: it is the follow-up to prepare_token_settlement, requiring the BODY_JSON produced there and a wallet signature over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the step pairing makes the usage context obvious.

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