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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds useful substance by confirming cents as the unit, naming the underlying endpoint (GET /payments), and disclosing that Stripe fee and refund amounts are returned. 'Read-only' mildly duplicates the annotation rather than extending it.

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 purpose and return fields, then filters, then unit and safety notes. The return-field enumeration is long but pays for itself given there is no output schema; a couple of clauses (safety restatement) are redundant with annotations.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so thoroughly, including fee/refund units and recurring-only customer id. Pagination behavior is not mentioned in the description, though the offset parameter description covers next_offset chaining.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented, and the description mainly restates the filter dimensions (form, customer, status, charge-date range) without adding format or interaction detail. The 'amounts are in cents' note adds value but pertains to output, not parameters. Baseline 3 is 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 MoonClerk payments (charges)') and immediately enumerates the returned fields, which distinguishes it clearly from the singular get_payment sibling. An agent knows this is the enumeration tool, not the single-record lookup.

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?

Supplies concrete filter scenarios ('failed payments this month or refunds for one plan') that map directly onto status/date/form parameters. It does not explicitly say when to prefer get_payment or list_customers instead, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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