list_invoice_payments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as pagination behavior, ordering, or that it only returns payments associated with the given invoice. It is a bare 'Fetch' without any details beyond what annotations imply.

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 very short (5 words) and front-loaded, but under-specification is a concern. It lacks critical context about the invoice scope, making it less useful than a concise yet informative description. It is not a tautology like 'Process', but it barely adds beyond the tool name.

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 simplicity (3 params, no output schema) and strong sibling context, the description is incomplete. It does not explain that the invoice_id is required to filter payments, nor does it mention pagination or the return format. The schema provides parameter details, but the overall purpose and usage context are underministered.

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%, with all three parameters (limit, offset, invoice_id) described in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning or context, so it does not compensate or enhance beyond the schema. Baseline of 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 states 'Fetch a list of payments', which identifies the verb and resource but is vague. It fails to mention that the list is specifically for a given invoice, despite the tool name and required invoice_id parameter. The description does not distinguish it from sibling tools like list_payments or list_all_payments.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_payments or list_all_payments. The description does not state that it is for invoice-specific payments or exclude other payment list tools. No context or prerequisites are provided.

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