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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond the name/title: no ordering, pagination behavior, or what "reported" means (e.g., only confirmed vs. pending payments).

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and the optional filter; nothing is wasted. It is terse, but the terseness problem is captured under completeness rather than verbosity.

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?

Four parameters, no output schema, and only one parameter documented in the schema; the description should at least cover pagination defaults and the meaning of the optional filter scope, but leaves those to inference.

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 only 25% — limit, offset and invoice_id carry no description in the schema. The description mentions invoice_id filtering but says nothing about limit/offset pagination semantics or defaults, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 reported payments") plus an optional scope ("for one invoice"). An agent can distinguish it from the sibling payment_record (which writes) and invoices_list (different resource), though it never names the sibling that creates 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 phrase "optionally for one invoice" implies the main filtering use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative such as payments_list vs. invoice_get for fetching payment data for an invoice.

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