Get Hmrc Vat Payments

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds meaningful operational context: data comes directly from HMRC MTD and the tool requires HMRC MTD to be connected. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Three short sentences contain only high-signal information: the operation, example triggers, and a prerequisite. The core action is front-loaded and no sentence is wasted.

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 list tool with optional date parametersholidays, the definition is largely complete, especially with annotations covering the safety profile. It could mention the return shape or explicitly route to liability/obligation tools, but nothing essential is missing for calling it correctly.

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?

Both parameters are already fully documented in the schema with formats and defaults (YYYY-MM-DD, today, ~18 months ago), giving 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-level detail, 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?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Read') and an unambiguous resource: the VAT payments HMRC has received on the company's account. The example user phrasings further pin down the intent)Skip and the resource is clearly distinct from HMRC VAT obligations or liabilities.

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?

It provides concrete trigger questions and states the HMRC MTD connection prerequisiteclude. It does not explicitly say when not to use the tool or name alternatives such as get_hmrc_vat_liabilities, but the usage context is clear enough for correct selection.

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