list_all_payments

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond a literal restatement of the tool's name and title; it does not disclose pagination behavior, filter semantics, or response format. Consequently, it offers no additional value beyond annotations.

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 a single short sentence that is immediately understandable and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward list operation, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple, and the schema captures parameter details. However, without an output schema and with a minimal description, there is little explanation of what 'all payments' includes or how it relates to other payment list tools. The description is sufficient for a basic understanding but lacks context to fully disambiguate from siblings.

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?

All three parameters (page, per-page, filter-by) are fully described in the schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not mention or elaborate on any parameters, so it adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Fetch a list of all payments' uses a clear verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource 'all payments', making the basic purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like list_invoice_payments or list_outgoing_payments, leaving some ambiguity about the exact scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the presence of sibling tools such as list_invoice_payments and list_outgoing_payments, the description does not explain which situations call for list_all_payments. This is a clear gap.

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