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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, it adds the required payments:read scope, explains that the returned cursor is used for the next page, and warns that user-written text appears in untrusted_fields and must not be treated as instructions. It does not disclose limit defaults, ordering, or full return shape.

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 operation is front-loaded, followed by permission, pagination, and security guidance in short sentences. Every clause adds useful information, including the security-critical untrusted_fields warning.

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?

With no output schema and annotations already covering safety, the description covers the key invocation concerns: scope, required permission, pagination protocol, and handling of untrusted text. It still omits limit behavior and some return details, but an agent can call it correctly without parameters or with a cursor.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains cursor as the next-page token but never explains what limit controls, leaving one of the two parameters semantically undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List payments I made.' The phrase 'I made' scopes the operation to outgoing payments and distinguishes it from the sibling list_received_payments.

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 implies use when viewing payments the caller made, but does not explicitly contrast with list_received_payments, get_payment, or list_transfers. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided beyond the implied scope.

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