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

Annotations already establish that this is a write operation that is not destructive. The description adds a meaningful behavioral boundary: this tool records a payment rather than executing payment processing. It does not detail side effects or idempotency, but the key non-obvious behavior is disclosed.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical caveat about payment processing is stated immediately afterward.

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, combined with the fully documented schema, covers the essential semantics and the most important restriction for this create operation. It does not explicitly describe the return value or side effects after creation, but the annotations clarify the write/non-destructive profile.

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 `entity` and `company`. The description adds one actionable field-level constraint beyond the schema—`ProcessPayment` must be omitted or false—and clarifies the semantic meaning of the payment object as an accounting record rather than a processing action.

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: 'Create a payment in QuickBooks Online.' It further clarifies that this is an accounting record of an already-received customer payment, which distinguishes it from payment-processing or payment-method creation tools among the siblings.

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 phrase 'customer payment already received' gives clear context for when to use this tool, and 'Payment processing is not supported; ProcessPayment must be omitted or false' is an explicit when-not. However, it does not name an alternative tool for payment processing, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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