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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further with "this server never moves money," which is meaningful disambiguation for payments — it tells the agent that refunds and authorizations are only listed, never initiated — and it names the fields returned. It stops short of describing pagination or response shape.

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 compact sentences with the resource and result contents front-loaded, followed by filtering. The trailing "Booqable: GET /api/4/payments" endpoint mapping is mildly redundant but cheap and useful for grounding.

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 seven-parameter, zero-required list tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers what is returned, the filter dimensions, and the read-only guarantee. Pagination behavior is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given the documented page/page_size fields.

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%, with each of the seven parameters documented including the payment-type enum, so the schema carries the load and the baseline is 3. The description's mention of order/customer/type filters loosely mirrors those parameters without adding format or syntax 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 verb (List) and resource (payments), then enumerates what the resource contains — charges, authorizations, refunds, plus the fields carried. That enumeration clearly separates it from siblings like booqable_list_orders or booqable_list_documents.

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?

"Filter by order, customer or payment type" conveys what the tool is good for, but it reads as parameter enumeration rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over a sibling lookup or any exclusions, so usage is only implied.

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