agenta_pay_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it supplies almost nothing. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but there is no mention of pagination behavior, result ordering, auth requirements, or what a returned checkout session contains.

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 words with zero padding and the action front-loaded, so there is no waste. But the brevity here is under-specification rather than disciplined concision, which caps the score.

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 simple two-optional-parameter list tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate to select the tool. With no output schema, though, it would have been useful to state what a listed checkout session looks like or how results are paginated.

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 both 'limit' and 'status' (enum) fully documented inline, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.

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 gives a clear verb and resource ('List checkout sessions'), which is enough to distinguish this list operation from mutation siblings like agenta_pay_checkout. However, it does nothing to differentiate itself from the closely related agenta_pay_get, which an agent could easily confuse for the same resource.

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 the alternatives such as agenta_pay_get or agenta_pay_checkout, nor any mention of prerequisites or filtering context. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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