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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the payment 'charges no one' but deducts from the total due and appears in payment reports, the call requires per-call user confirmation by default (configurable), reaches other people so the user must be consulted, and it needs a Cotlet API key with app access. These are concrete side-effect, confirmation and auth disclosures not present in the 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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by effect, confirmation and auth—a logical order. It is slightly longer than necessary, with the confirmation requirement stated in two separate sentences ('you confirm each call' and 'confirm with the user before each call') plus a mild restatement of the in-app flow.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no enums, the description covers effects, reporting impact, confirmation policy and credential requirements. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description echoes the fields (amount, method, status, date) but adds no format, enum, or constraint detail beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 cash, check or in-house card payment on an event') and scopes it to offline payments logged on a single event. This is distinguishable from siblings like perfect-venue_list_payments and perfect-venue_refund_payment without opening any schema.

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?

Explains the context clearly, noting it logs payments made outside Perfect Venue and 'charges no one', which implicitly contrasts it with tools that actually move money. It maps to the app's own 'Add payment, Offline payment' flow, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative to steer the agent.

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