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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It mentions the summary by payment type, which is useful. However, it omits typical list-tool behaviors such as pagination (cursor, limit), required orgSlug, and confirms it is a read-only operation; these are not explicitly stated.

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, eleven words, with the primary purpose front-loaded. Every word adds value, and the summary note is a meaningful addition. No filler or redundancy.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this minimal description leaves major gaps. It does not explain return format, pagination behavior, required fields, or how filters map to parameters. In the context of many sibling finance list tools, it also does not clarify its unique scope beyond 'payments received'.

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 does not explain any of the 8 parameters. It only mentions 'filters' generically, offering no meaning for `tipo`, `dateFrom`, `clientId`, `cursor`, or the required `orgSlug`. This is severely insufficient for an agent to correctly construct a request.

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's action ('List payments received') and adds a specific detail ('Includes summary by payment type'). It distinguishes from sibling finance tools like finance_list_ventas and finance_list_gastos, though 'payments received' could potentially overlap with finance_list_cobros.

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 instead of similar finance list tools (e.g., finance_list_cobros, finance_list_invoices). The phrase 'with filters' implies flexibility but gives no examples or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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