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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds three things annotations cannot convey: the required `payments:read` scope, the pagination contract of feeding the returned cursor back, and a prompt-injection warning that human-written text arrives in `untrusted_fields` and must never be treated as instructions. That last point is unusually valuable safety context for an agent consuming free-text payment notes.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then permission, then pagination mechanics, then the safety note. Every sentence carries distinct operational information with no filler or repetition.

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, the description must hint at the return shape, and it does so by naming `untrusted_fields` and the cursor field. It leaves the default and behavior of `limit` unexplained and does not sketch the payment record's contents, but for a simple two-parameter list tool this is close to sufficient.

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 both parameters rest on the description. It explains `cursor` well, tying it to the response cursor for subsequent pages, but says nothing about `limit` (its range, default, or effect on page size). One of two parameters is meaningfully covered, which lands at the minimum-viable baseline.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List payments') plus a scope qualifier ('I received') that separates it from the sibling list_payments and get_received_payment tools. It stops short of naming the alternative outright, but an agent can still route correctly from the scope wording alone.

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 'I received' framing implies the usage context (inbound payments), and the cursor sentence tells the agent how to continue paging. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative such as list_payments for outbound payments, so the routing decision is left partly to inference.

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