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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses read-only semantics, that records are never charged, and that they never count toward Doing Work fees — non-obvious domain behavior an agent could not guess. It omits pagination behavior despite a limit parameter, keeping it from a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence with the read-only caveat front-loaded in parentheses and the filter hint trailing. No filler, though the parenthetical is packed enough that the fee-exclusion clause reads as a run-on.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the definition leaves shop_id scoping and pagination unaddressed — enough for a correct call, not enough for a confident one.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains customer_id as a filter but says nothing about shop_id (the required parameter) or limit (bounded 1–500, implying result capping), leaving two of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

Names a specific resource (payment history imported from another system) and states its read-only nature, which separates it from the import-execution siblings like imports_run/historyRun. It does not explicitly name those siblings, 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?

'Owner or office' hints at the audience and 'Filter by customer_id' implies a lookup use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance nor any reference to the adjacent imports_history* tools. Usage is inferable but not directed.

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