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

'(READ ONLY)' merely restates the readOnlyHint=true annotation, so it earns no credit. The only added information is the underlying endpoint GET /expected_payments, and the description says nothing about ordering, pagination flow, or result 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, with no filler. It is lean but stops at the minimum, offering no structural cues such as pagination notes.

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 zero-required-parameter list tool with fully documented params and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. Pagination semantics and result ordering are left entirely to the schema and are not reinforced, leaving a small 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so status, per_page, and after_cursor are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 expected payments'), which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling list tools such as list_payment_orders and list_transactions. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, but the resource name does the differentiating work.

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 guidance on when to choose this over list_payment_orders, list_transactions, or the other list siblings, nor any stated prerequisites. The agent must infer usage purely from the resource name.

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