track_payment

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the call classifies the transaction, computes tax owed, and writes a record to the AgentTax account, which is meaningful side-effect context. It omits idempotency behavior (dedup is only hinted at via the payment_id schema field), auth/account requirements, and whether the logged liability can be amended or removed.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and its trigger, with zero filler. The follow-on sentence covers the automatic behaviors compactly.

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 7-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin on outcomes: it says tax is calculated and logged but never indicates what the caller gets back (computed liability, classification result, receipt/id). An agent cannot tell whether it must read the result elsewhere or whether the call is safe to retry.

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?

All 7 parameters have schema descriptions, so baseline is 3. The prose echoes the source options ('Stripe, x402, or direct') but adds no format, precedence, or default guidance beyond what the schema already states (e.g. it never mentions buyer_state, amount, or the b2b/zip rate effects).

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 (track) plus the resource (a payment received), and adds the secondary effects: auto-classification, tax calculation, and logging to an AgentTax account. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like calculate_tax, so the agent gets a clear purpose but no differentiation from the tax-only alternative.

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 trigger: 'Call this after receiving any payment — Stripe, x402, or direct,' which tells the agent the timing and the covered payment sources. It stops short of naming when not to use it or pointing to calculate_tax for hypothetical or non-received-payment tax estimates.

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