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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing prerequisites (paid package, manage-payment-status permission, Cotlet API key), the confirmation-by-default behavior and its toggle, and a user-confirmation requirement because it reaches other people. It also states return values, which matters since there is no output schema. Content is strong though partly harness boilerplate.

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 purpose is good, but the description runs long across several sentences that include meta boilerplate ('confirm each call', 'Cotlet API key with access to this app') that does not help an agent decide how to invoke the tool. It is adequately sized but not every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies permissions, confirmation behavior, and return values (paid total and outstanding), so it is nearly self-sufficient. The lack of contrast with settle_invoices is the main remaining gap.

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 (including the Hungarian term explanations). The description's 'credit date, amount and title' merely restates fields, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 full or part payment on an invoice', and enumerates the key fields (credit date, amount, title). An agent understands the operation without opening the schema. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling szamlazz-hu_settle_invoices, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Provides clear usage context: a smaller amount becomes a part payment and multiple payments can be recorded on one invoice, plus prerequisites (paid package, permission to manage payment status). It never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use it, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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