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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to cover those. The description adds that it marks an item as received/paid, which is a mutation. The PROBE warning about confirming body shape is a transparency note about schema uncertainty, but it does not disclose side effects, required auth, or response behavior. This adds some value beyond annotations, but not extensively.

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?

The description is very short (two sentences), so it is concise. However, the second sentence 'PROBE: confirm body shape with a live gym' is a developer note that is not informative for tool selection or invocation; it adds noise. While brevity is good, the content should be purposeful. The structure is simple but the PROBE instruction is extraneous.

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?

This is a mutation tool with a nested object parameter, no output schema, and no descriptions in the schema. The description fails to explain what the 'data' object should contain, what the effect of marking as received is, or any side effects. Given the tool's complexity and lack of schema information, the description is severely inadequate for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the parameters. The 'data' object and 'account' string are completely unexplained. With such low schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it fails to do so entirely, offering zero parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the action: 'Mark a receivable as received/paid.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like evo_receivables (likely listing) and evo_sales. However, the second sentence 'PROBE: confirm body shape with a live gym' adds ambiguity and is not part of the purpose, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when to choose it over evo_receivables or other write tools, or any exclusions. The description only states what it does, not the context of use.

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