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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only the account scoping and the REST endpoint, not return shape, pagination semantics (despite the next_query param), or auth requirements.

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 the core purpose front-loaded. The raw endpoint path at the end is marginal filler but does not obscure the purpose.

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 two-parameter, read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the definition supplies enough for an agent to call correctly. Missing pagination behavior detail is a minor gap since next_query is documented in the schema.

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%, including a clear explanation of the pagination token and the active filter, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about the active or next_query arguments, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not additive.

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 payment options') and clarifies with examples of what a payment option is (cash, card, voucher). No sibling tool covers payment options, so differentiation is implicitly handled by the unique resource.

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?

Use is implied by 'list ... configured for the account', but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus other listing tools or any prerequisite context. Given no sibling overlaps on this resource, the inference cost is low, so a 3 rather than lower.

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