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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly/destructive/openWorld), and the description adds ordering (newest first), pagination (up to 100 per page, cursor passthrough), status values, return structure, and an auth requirement (Cotlet API key with app access) — rich context beyond structured fields.

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 with purpose and the practical 'check before recording' guidance, but seven sentences is slightly long; the detailed return-field enumeration overlaps with what the list already implies.

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, the description carries the burden of describing return values, ordering, pagination, statuses, and auth — and it does so completely enough that an agent can call and interpret the result correctly.

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 schema documents all six parameters. The description only reinforces limit/cursor via the pagination sentence, adding little syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides. 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 ('Lists recorded payments') plus the exact fields returned (client, date, amount, type, reference, applied invoices). It distinguishes itself from the mutating sibling by framing the read use case against record_payment.

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 an explicit use case: 'Use it before record_payment to check that a bank transfer was not already entered.' This routes the agent to a concrete workflow, though it names no alternative read tools or when-not-to-use conditions.

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