Stream

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't describe pagination behavior (implied by page/limit parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, whether it's read-only (implied by 'list' but not explicit), or what the output contains. The description adds some context about filter options but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence efficiently details filter options with specific examples. While concise, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning pagination parameters or grouping related filters.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (7 parameters, filtering functionality) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers filter semantics well but misses pagination parameters and behavioral context. With no annotations and incomplete parameter coverage, it leaves gaps that could hinder effective tool selection and use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 7 parameters, the description compensates well by explaining the semantics of 5 key parameters (statuses with enum values, invoice_id, search_term, from_date, to_date). It provides format details (ISO-8601 for dates) and the complete status enum. However, it doesn't mention the page and limit parameters at all, leaving their purpose undocumented.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'List payments with optional filters,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_payment' (singular retrieval) and 'mark_payment_as_paid' (mutation), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_invoices' beyond the resource type.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, compare with 'get_payment' for single payment retrieval, or indicate when filtering is appropriate versus using other list tools. Usage is implied through the filter descriptions but not explicitly stated.

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