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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds behavioral value by disclosing the one-page constraint, the spreadsheet-safe formatting intent, and the pagination requirement.

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 short sentences, each earning its place. The core action and output format are front-loaded, and the critical pagination caveat appears immediately after.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the operation is non-destructive and read-only, the description covers the key usage boundaries: single page, CSV output, pagination needed for more data. The only minor gap is not contextualizing the optional status filter, but the enum values make that reasonably self-evident.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it only implies page/limit through 'one page' and 'pagination.' The 'status' parameter is left entirely undocumented, and the description adds no meaning beyond the raw property names and enum values in 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Export'), a resource ('owned payments'), and an output format ('spreadsheet-safe CSV'). It also clarifies the page-limited scope, which distinguishes it from an all-time export and from sibling listing/report tools.

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?

The description gives clear usage guidance: export only one page and follow pagination for additional rows. It explicitly warns 'not an all-time export,' which prevents a common misuse. It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the pagination instruction is sufficient context for this export function.

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