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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds that results are id-bearing and feed payment recording, but says nothing about ordering, whether archived methods appear by default, or result volume — though the include_archived and cursor params partially cover those in 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 clauses: what the resource is and why you'd call it, followed by the endpoint. Nothing is wasted and the useful context is front-loaded.

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 trivial read-only list tool with fully documented params and no output schema, the description covers purpose and downstream use adequately. Adding return-shape or ordering detail would round it out, but the agent can call it correctly as written.

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% and each of the five params (id_gt/id_lt/update_gt/update_lt/include_archived) is documented in-schema, including pagination intent. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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 the specific resource (payment methods), enumerates example values (cash, card, bank transfer), and says the returned ids are what's needed to record a payment, which separates it from splose_list_payments. It never names a sibling tool explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

"needed to record a payment" is a real workflow cue pointing at splose_record_payment, so usage context is implied rather than spelled out. There is no explicit when-not guidance and nothing about paging through results or when to prefer another lookup.

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