List Payouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds material behavior not in annotations: the sort order (newest first) and that results are paginated with a total count. It stops short of noting rate limits or the cost of a large limit.

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 opening sentence is well front-loaded and zero-waste, but the following 'Args' block duplicates the schema field-for-field and does not earn its place. Trimming it would leave a stronger description.

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?

With no output schema, the sentence 'Returns a paginated list with total count' usefully conveys the return shape, and sort order is given. However, the status filter has no enum and the description names no valid status values, leaving the one meaningful filter under-specified.

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 three parameters are documented by the schema itself. The 'Args' block merely restates limit/default/max and offset/default verbatim, adding no new semantics — the 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 and resource ('List withdrawal transactions for the tenant') and adds scope/ordering ('newest first'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like ashar_list_transfers or ashar_get_payout, so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

Gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. The only contextual cue is 'for the tenant', which implies this is the tenant-wide listing rather than a per-customer one, but that is left implicit rather than stated.

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