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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden: it does disclose the returned fields and the four payment lifecycle statuses, which is genuine value. However, it does not state that this is a read-only, non-mutating operation, nor anything about pagination semantics, ordering, or permissions.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the filterable dimensions. 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?

For a six-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return shape (tx_hash, confirmations, amount, status) and enumerates statuses, which is the key missing structured information. It omits pagination behavior and default ordering, but limit/cursor are described in the schema.

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 coverage is 33% (only limit and cursor are documented), so the description must compensate — it names invoice_id, status, chain and tx_hash as filters but adds no format or matching semantics (e.g., exact match, combinability). It partially fills the gap but leaves meaningful ambiguity.

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 on-chain payments') and identifies the object prefix (pay_...), so the agent knows exactly what entity is returned. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling list tools (list_invoices, list_wallets, list_assets), but the resource is unambiguous enough to distinguish them.

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?

Usage is implied by naming the filterable fields, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of relationships to siblings (e.g., use get_invoice for a single invoice's detail vs. this tool for enumerating payments), and no note that all filters are optional.

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