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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the 'GET /invs/{hash_key}/payments' reference corroborates that this is a safe read. The description adds nothing further about result ordering, empty-invoice behavior, or pagination beyond what the schema shows.

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 terse sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and zero redundant wording; the endpoint reference is compact rather than verbose.

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 simple read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and annotation coverage, the description gives enough to call it correctly. The only minor gap is that no output shape exists, so return structure (payment fields) is left unstated.

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 page, per_page, and hash_key all documented in-schema (including the hash_key vs numeric id warning). The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so 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 the payments') with explicit scope ('entered on an invoice'), which separates it from hiveage_get_payment (single payment) and hiveage_list_invoices (invoice-level). It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus hiveage_get_payment or listing payments through another route, no prerequisites, and no note about pagination flow. The only usage signal is the implied invoice-scoped context.

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