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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: result ordering (newest first), the fields returned, and the authentication requirement (a Cotlet API key with access to the app).

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?

Front-loads what the tool does and stays to three sentences with no filler. Slight redundancy between the first sentence ('date, method and amount') and the second ('newest first, with the method and reference'), which restates the returned fields.

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 and a single-parameter schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so, describing order and fields. Combined with usage and auth notes it is nearly complete, though it omits pagination or result-count behavior.

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% and the single job_id parameter is documented in the schema ('Job ID from list_jobs'). The description only implies single-job scoping ('one job') and adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (list payments recorded on a job) and what it returns (date, method, amount, newest first). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the mutating acculynx_record_payment_received sibling, which it references by name.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to call it ('before record_payment_received to see whether a deposit is already there') and names the related sibling. It lacks any when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as get_job, but the primary use case is clear and actionable.

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