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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond them: results are 'newest first', capped at 100, scoped to all salons unless one is given, and notably exclude card details — a meaningful data-sensitivity disclosure. It stops short of describing pagination beyond the limit cap.

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?

Front-loaded with the triggering question, then the returned shape, scope, ordering, cap and exclusion in a single dense passage. Every clause carries information — no filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so field-by-field return documentation is not strictly required, yet the description still names the key fields, which helps selection. Combined with the scope defaults, ordering, cap and card-detail exclusion, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only pagination/truncation behavior past the 100 cap is left unaddressed.

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 100%, so each of the five parameters (limit, endTime, salonId, clientId, startTime) is already documented with defaults, ISO 8601 format and id patterns. The description only restates the date window, salon scoping and the 100 cap, adding no format, boundary, or default nuance the schema does not already carry.

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 (list) and resource (salon payments) and immediately enumerates what the returned records contain: id, client and salon ids, date, amount, currency, status. It also draws an explicit boundary ('Not for charging or refunding a client'), so an agent can separate this read tool from payment-mutation intents without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete triggering situations: 'when someone asks what payments their salon took, whether a client paid, or how much came in over a period', and an explicit exclusion for charging/refunding. It does not name an alternative sibling (e.g. list_appointments) for adjacent questions, but no sibling overlaps on payment data, so the routing is clear.

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