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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile. The description adds the concrete backing endpoint (POST /v1/payments:list, despite being a read) and the optional-order filtering behavior, which is mild added context but says nothing about result volume, ordering, or pagination semantics beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded clauses with no filler; scope comes before the API endpoint reference. Slightly redundant to append the endpoint, which adds little for tool selection.

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 read-only paginated list with no output schema, the description does not indicate what a payment record contains or whether results are ordered/filterable beyond order_ids. Adequate with schema and annotations, but leaves an agent guessing at return content.

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 coverage is 75%: company_id, page_size and page_token are documented in the schema. The one undescribed parameter, order_ids, is covered by the description's 'optionally for given orders'. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does most of the work.

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 payments') plus the scoping ('of a company'), so the operation is unambiguous. It doesn't distinguish itself from sibling moego_get_payment (single) or moego_list_orders, which share the same domain vocabulary, leaving an agent to infer the boundary.

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 phrase 'optionally for given orders' implies when to pass order_ids, but there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over moego_get_payment for a known payment or over moego_list_orders. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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