record_payment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond 'records'. It does not say whether a new record is created, whether re-recording is idempotent, how it interacts with tax_overview or export_vat_return, or what permissions are required. For a financial mutation tool that is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the tax domains in parentheses. No filler, nothing to trim, and no burying of the key information.

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?

The rich input schema plus the presence of an output schema mean return values and field formats do not need restating. However, a six-parameter financial write tool with zero annotations and several adjacent payment tools leaves the agent without enough to decide confidently when this tool is the right one.

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%, with the kind enum, period format (YYYY-MM), paid_on, and tax_year defaults all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: records a paid advance (záloha) or top-up payment (doplatek), scoped to four tax domains (income tax, social, health, VAT). An agent can tell this apart from generic payment tools like mark_paid. It stops short of a full 5 because it never names the tax-versus-invoice-payment boundary explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the parenthetical list of tax kinds signals this is for tax authority payments rather than invoices. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no routing to siblings such as mark_paid or mark_expense_paid, which an agent must infer.

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