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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so safety and repeat-call behavior are covered elsewhere. The description adds the business effect ('counts as received'), which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about preconditions (must be unrealized), failure behavior, or what changes on the invoice.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads 'WRITE:' and the core semantics, the second gives the transport endpoint. Zero filler; every clause 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 two-parameter mutation with rich annotations, a complete schema, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, and endpoint. It only lacks precondition/error guidance (e.g., what happens when the payment is already realized), which is a minor gap at this complexity level.

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% and both parameters are well documented, including the important hash_key-vs-numeric-id distinction. The description reinforces this with the endpoint template showing where each parameter lands. Nothing is missing.

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 (mark an offline/unrealized payment as realized) plus the resulting state semantics ('counts as received'), which distinguishes it from hiveage_record_payment. The API endpoint is included as corroboration. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the 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?

The parenthetical '(unrealized)' plus 'so it counts as received' clearly implies this applies to existing pending payments, not new ones — implicitly steering away from hiveage_record_payment. However, no sibling is named explicitly and there is no statement about what to do if the payment is already realized.

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