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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: hard bounds of 366 days and 1000 requests, explicit failure instead of silent partial totals, and a clear distinction that daily completed amounts are by network and asset, not settlement-date revenue.

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 two dense sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every clause adds meaningful information about bounds, filters, failure behavior, or metric semantics.

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 report-generation tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description is complete enough. It covers scope, limits, filters, failure behavior, and the reporting basis, leaving no major operational ambiguity for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 must compensate. It does a good job by explaining that the date parameters form an inclusive UTC creation-date range and that status, network, and currency are filters. It does not elaborate on each parameter's format or optionality, though the schema already encodes those details.

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 tool produces a bounded report/spreadsheet-safe CSV for an inclusive UTC creation-date range, and lists the available filters. It is specific about verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as auraspay_payments_export_csv or auraspay_payments_analyze.

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 strong usage context: inclusive date range, 366-day and 1000-request limits, and filter options by status, network, or currency. It also advises narrowing the range for larger reports, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over its sibling alternatives.

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