payout_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: results are capped at ten entries, scoped to the local mode/profile, and bank account numbers are masked — the masking note is genuinely valuable context not derivable from 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. No filler; every clause (cap of ten, local profile, masking) earns its place.

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 a no-parameter, read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It could mention ordering or an empty-history case, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the baseline is 4. Nothing about the description conflicts with the empty schema, and no parameter meaning needs to be added.

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 (List) and resource (payouts) with a clear scope: the ten most recent in the local profile. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with payout_status, though the 'history/list' framing versus a single-status lookup is reasonably inferable.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as payout_status or get_balance. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the tool name and 'ten most recent' scope.

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