get_payment_register

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Get' wording aligns with that. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the return shape ('month-by-month summary') and noting the report's design mirrors get_sales_register. It does not detail exact output fields, but this is acceptable given the simple read-only nature and no output schema.

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, both essential. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides a focused routing caveat with supporting evidence. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 simple, read-only, two-parameter tool, the description covers what the report is, its shape, and how it relates to nearby siblings. It does not fully enumerate return fields or edge cases, but the reference to get_sales_register's design and the schema's complete parameter docs make this sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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%: both from and to are described as DD-MM-YYYY strings. The description adds only that these form a date range for the report, which is consistent but does not materially enrich parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 ('Get'), resource ('Payment Register from TallyPrime'), and scope ('for a date range', 'month-by-month summary of Payment voucher activity'). It also distinguishes itself from get_sales_register and get_receipts_and_payments, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use an alternative: 'For Receipt vouchers specifically, use get_receipts_and_payments instead.' It also explains why, citing a live confirmation that no standalone Receipt Register is reachable this way. This removes ambiguity about sibling tool selection.

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