search_payments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the data source (KikoBooks), the scope (customer AR), and that results are paginated, which is useful. It omits permissions, sort order, and result shape beyond 'paginated'.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then capabilities, then return behavior. No filler. Could arguably be trimmed further, so not a 5.

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-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not describe returned fields or pagination defaults (pageSize=50, page=1 live only in the schema), leaving gaps an agent would need.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters with syntax and examples. The description only summarizes the filter categories (customer, status, method, date range, text search) and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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 customer payments (AR) from KikoBooks.' The '(AR)' scope implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling search_bill_payments (AP). It is clear, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by its nature as a list/search tool. The description enumerates filter capabilities but gives no when-to-use guidance, no condition that selects it over search_bill_payments or get_payment, and no prerequisites.

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