search_bill_payments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies read-only and 'Returns paginated results' discloses the pagination trait, which is genuine added context. But it omits pagination limits/defaults, ordering, auth requirements, and any note that an empty filter returns everything.

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?

Three short sentences with the core verb-resource front-loaded and no filler. Slightly improved by naming the filters, though that sentence largely duplicates the schema.

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?

For an 8-param search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin: return shape is only gestured at ('paginated results') and nothing is said about filtering defaults or empty-result behavior. Adequate but leaves real gaps.

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 all eight parameters are already documented. The description's filter list (vendor, status, payment method, date range, text search) merely restates schema dimensions and adds no syntax or semantics beyond them, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List bill payments (AP)') and names the source system (KikoBooks). However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like search_payments, search_bills, or get_bill_payment, so an agent must infer the boundary between AP bill payments and generic 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as search_payments for generic payments or get_bill_payment for a single record. The agent gets filter hints but nothing about when this tool is the right choice.

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