List WooCommerce Payment Gateways

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the exact fields returned (gateway ID, title, description, enabled state, method title) and the scope ('all registered'). It also suggests a practical use case (checking Stripe test mode), which goes beyond annotation data.

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 three sentences, each purposeful: the first states the action, the second enumerates returned fields, and the third gives a real-world usage example. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and has no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only listing tool with a well-defined schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers all essential aspects: what it lists, what data it returns, and when to use it. No output schema exists, but the description explicitly enumerates return fields, making the tool's behavior fully understood.

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% (single parameter `response_format` with enum values and clear descriptions). The tool description does not reference the parameter, but that's fine because the schema already fully explains it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('List all registered payment gateways') and the resource (payment gateways). It also lists the exact output fields (ID, title, description, enabled state, method title), making its purpose specific and distinguishable from siblings like wc_update_payment_gateway and wc_get_settings.

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?

The description provides a direct use case: 'Use this to check if Stripe is enabled and in test mode.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but for a read-only listing tool, the use case is sufficient.

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