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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does usefully scope results to 'paid and partially paid' invoices (implying unpaid/pending are excluded) and previews the fields returned (payer, method, settlement details). It says nothing about pagination, result limits, or access requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource, scope, and return content in that order. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is listed, which statuses qualify, and what each record contains. Only pagination behavior and the read-only guarantee are left implicit, which is a minor gap.

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?

There is only one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents walletMappingId as a collection vault filter. The description's mention of 'your collection vaults' loosely connects to that filter but adds no format or usage detail beyond the schema.

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 resource and scope: paid and partially paid invoices on collection vaults, framed as 'what you sold'. The 'Merchant view' framing distinguishes it from the payer-side sibling list_payment_purchases, though the sibling is not named explicitly.

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 'Merchant view: ... what you sold' – an agent can infer this is the seller-side sales listing rather than the purchase listing. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_payment_purchases or get_payment_request, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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