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

Annotations already signal a safe read operation, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it specifies the operation is for a single record, includes both payments and refunds, and is restricted to AU, CA, and UK companies. This helps the agent understand eligibility and scope without contradicting 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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core action and lookup method are front-loaded, followed only by the essential scope and eligibility details.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema, read-only annotations, and the clear country constraint, the description provides what an agent needs to select and invoke the tool. An explicit pointer to search_tax_payments for discovering IDs would be a minor enhancement but is not essential.

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%, so the parameters 'id' and 'company' are already well documented. The description adds little beyond confirming the ID is the lookup key and the optional company context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Get a single tax payment from QuickBooks Online by Id.' It differentiates this from sibling search tools like search_tax_payments by emphasizing 'single' and 'by Id,' and clarifies the scope as sales tax payments/refunds for AU, CA, and UK companies.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need one tax payment by its QuickBooks Id. It does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives such as search_tax_payments, nor does it name exclusions or prerequisites beyond the country limitation.

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