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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond that – it notes the underlying GET endpoint but says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or volume limits. With annotations carrying the main behavioral signal, a 3 is appropriate.

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 tightly packed sentences with the capability stated first and the endpoint reference trailing. Nothing is wasted, though the endpoint sentence is low-value for an agent that already has the tool signature.

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 an 8-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the filter dimensions and the ids_only behavior adequately. It could mention that unfiltered calls return all payments (a potentially large result), but nothing essential for invocation is missing.

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%, so every parameter (top, skip, dates, event_id, contact_id, unsettled_only, ids_only) is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the filter categories, adding no syntax or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides – the baseline 3 for fully covered schemas.

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 received') and enumerates the available filter scopes (contact, event, unsettled, created-date range), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not name the nearest sibling (wildapricot_list_invoices or list_donations) to disambiguate, which keeps it from a 5.

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 filter list implies when this tool is useful (payments by contact/event/date), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as list_invoices, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the optional parameters.

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