payments_list_transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context—no mention of pagination (limit/offset), filtering capabilities, or what a successful response contains. It provides zero value beyond the 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 extremely short—two words—and while it contains no fluff, it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks structure, front-loading of key constraints (like required params), and any instructional content. It reads like a placeholder rather than a deliberate summary.

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?

With 14 parameters and 2 required, the description offers no explanation of the required altId/altType, no mention of pagination semantics, and no guidance on filters like search or paymentMode. There is no output schema, and the description doesn't clarify the return shape. An agent would find the schema alone insufficient for correct invocation.

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 each parameter already has a terse description. The tool description 'List Transactions' adds no extra meaning to the parameters, meeting the baseline for full schema coverage. No further elaboration is provided.

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?

Description 'List Transactions' clearly states the verb (List) and resource (Transactions), and distinguishes it from single-record tools like payments_get_transaction_by_id. It could be more specific about scoping (e.g., by altId), but the basic purpose is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like payments_list_orders, payments_list_subscriptions, or payments_get_transaction_by_id. The required parameters altId/altType are not explained in the description, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema alone.

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