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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose two key behaviors: 'Updates cobro status automatically' and 'Requires confirm: true'. However, it does not clarify what 'confirm' actually does, what happens if confirm is false, or provide any details about side effects, reversibility, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no fluff or redundancy. It is concise, but given the tool's complexity (9 parameters), it is perhaps too sparse to convey all necessary information, though that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness issue.

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 tool's complexity—9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations—the description is incomplete. It does not explain most parameters, does not specify the return value or success/failure indicators, and lacks guidance on prerequisites like idempotencyKey or the meaning of tipo and fecha. An agent would struggle to correctly invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only mentions 'confirm: true', providing meaning for one of nine parameters. Parameters like monto, tipo, cobroId, and orgSlug are not explained at all, leaving the agent to guess their meaning. This is insufficient for a tool with this many parameters.

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 clearly states 'Register a manual payment against an existing charge (cobro)', with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like finance_create_cobro (creating a charge) and finance_list_payments (listing payments). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 context: it is for manual payments against existing charges, which implies it is used when a charge already exists and needs a payment registered. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state 'when not to use', but the context is clear enough for an agent to distinguish from payment listing or creation tools.

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