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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful operational fact — the payments.read scope requirement — but says nothing about paging behavior or result shape beyond what the schema already documents.

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 with no filler, and the searchable facets are front-loaded before the auth requirement. Efficient, though the second sentence is a bare credential note rather than structured guidance.

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 7 parameters, nested filters, and no output schema, the description should at least sketch what a result looks like (payment record fields, pagination envelope) and how it differs from list_invoice_payments. The rich schema compensates for parameter gaps, but the return-shape and sibling-routing gaps remain.

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 in detail, including status enum values and paging semantics. The description only restates the status values and the company/individual filter idea, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; 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 (search payments) plus the two axes it searches on (status, related company/individual), which is clear beyond the title. It does not differentiate from the sibling sellsy_list_invoice_payments, so an agent cannot tell from the description which of the two to pick.

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?

Usage is only implied: it names the filters available, which hints that this is used when narrowing payments by status or counterparty. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative sibling list tool, leaving the choice to inference.

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