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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it clarifies nothing is charged, that it only writes the payment into the job, that confirmation happens by default (and can be switched off), that it reaches other people so the user must confirm, and that a Cotlet API key with app access is required. This is rich operational context beyond readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint.

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-loaded and readable, but 'Nothing is charged' is stated twice and the confirmation guidance is split across two sentences, creating redundancy. Every sentence is not maximally earned.

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?

For a write tool with no output schema, the description covers the key agent concerns: no charge occurs, confirmation is required by default, other people are reached, and the API key requirement. It even notes it returns the payment, though return shape is unspecified.

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 five parameters (amount, job_id, method, reference, received_on). The description adds no syntax or format detail 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 and resource ('Record a payment the customer made on a job') and clarifies the scope precisely. It distinguishes itself from charging tools by emphasizing the payment already happened, so an agent can tell it apart from payment-creation 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?

Gives clear context for when to use it: recording a payment the customer already made, e.g. a deposit check, and states 'Nothing is charged.' However it names no explicit alternative sibling for the charge case, leaving that to inference.

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