Log Income

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-destructive write with openWorldHint=false. The description adds material behavior beyond that: a per-call cost ($0.10), an API-key requirement, and the idempotency semantics of external_id. It stops short of describing what happens on duplicate detection or how fixed fields interact with supplied ones.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and the alias relationship, then idempotency guidance and operational caveats. No filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers cost, auth, idempotency, and alias semantics, leaving only the many undocumented input fields as a gap relative to the tool's 11-parameter complexity.

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 only 18% (request_id and idempotency_key are the only documented properties), so the description must compensate across 11 params. It explains external_id's idempotency role and clarifies that type/direction are set implicitly, but leaves source, merchant, person_id, payment_method, currency, date, notes, and amount with no meaning beyond their names.

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+resource ('Record money received') and grounds it with concrete trigger examples (Stripe, refunds, payroll, Venmo). It also clarifies its relationship to the sibling tool log_transaction by naming itself as an alias with fixed type=income and direction=from, so an agent can distinguish it from log_expense and log_transaction without opening schemas.

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 clear context for when this applies (money received from the listed sources) and a specific directive to use external_id for Stripe/Gmail idempotency. It does not explicitly state when to prefer log_income over calling log_transaction directly, but the alias disclosure implies they are interchangeable, which is adequate guidance.

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