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

With annotations only covering safety flags, the description adds real substance: it explicitly does not charge a card, reports the job total and amount still due, describes per-call confirmation (default on, switchable), flags that it reaches other people, and states the API-key requirement. This is well beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

"Record a payment you already received on a job" is stated twice in near-identical form, and "Does not charge a card" is repeated as a separate sentence. The core purpose is front-loaded, but the duplicated sentences waste space and should have been consolidated.

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 no output schema, the description covers return values (job total, amount due), confirmation behavior, external side effects, and auth needs. Only the absence of a reference to a related tool or edge-case handling keeps it from being fully complete.

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 already documents all five parameters. The description restates method options and reference (check number) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, and ignores paid_at. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the load.

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 you already received on a job") and even disambiguates from a card charge. It does not name or contrast with any sibling tool (e.g. workiz_create_invoice / workiz_send_invoice), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The scenario is implied well (payment already received, in cash/check/credit), but no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance. The confirmation note describes behavior, not tool selection.

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