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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds real substance: newest-first ordering, a hard 500-row cap, minor-unit amounts (1999 = 19.99), and the non-obvious rule that only completed checkouts and the iyzico/PayTR buyer form carry contact details while has_contact merely flags presence without returning PII.

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-loads scope and ordering before the parameter explanations, and every clause carries information. It is somewhat run-on with slash-separated lists and typos ('seliee'), which cost a bit of readability but not meaning.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (checkout_id, uuid, status, minor-unit amount, currency, price/product/website ids, opened/finished times, error code, has_contact). An agent knows exactly what it gets back for a 6-param, complex tool.

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?

With 0% schema coverage across 6 params, the description carries the burden well: it enumerates all 13 provider values, defines the status values, gives the YYYY-MM-DD format and semantics for 'since', and explains both website identifiers. Only per_page is left implicit (hinted at by 'at most 500 rows').

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 ('the checkouts of one payment provider'), lists the exact provider enum, and pins scope ('one payment provider', 'newest first'). It is unmistakably distinct from sibling list_payment_prices / list_payment_products without opening any 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?

Explains what each status value means (CREATED = opened but unfinished, an abandoned one stays here), what 'since' filters on (when the checkout was opened), and how website params narrow scope, plus a 500-row ceiling. It gives clear usage context but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over adjacent payment tools.

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