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 adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: the returned field set, the REST endpoint, and the fact that responses come in a paged envelope, which tells the agent to expect pagination.

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-loaded with the action and resource, then the return fields and endpoint in two compact fragments. No wasted words, though the telegraphic dash-separated field list is slightly dense rather than flowing prose.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the main returned fields and notes the paged envelope, so the agent knows both shape and pagination. Only distribution/rate-limit or error-behavior detail is missing, which is minor for a read-only list 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (page, query, orderBy, pageSize, companyId) is already documented with examples and constraints. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the mention of a paged envelope, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a company's payments received') and immediately disambiguates scope with '(money in against invoices)', which separates it from the sibling codat_list_bill_payments. It even names the underlying API path, so an agent knows exactly what is being fetched.

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 parenthetical 'money in against invoices' gives clear selection context against the money-out sibling, and the required companyId is implied by 'a company's payments'. It stops short of explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or naming codat_list_bill_payments as the alternative.

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