list_payments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds essentially nothing beyond that safety profile plus the filter names, which the schema already documents. No mention of ordering, default result behavior, or pagination semantics beyond what the schema states.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and filter scope front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately short for a simple list operation, though it is thin enough to leave gaps the evaluator must note elsewhere.

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 six-parameter, all-optional list tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation but says nothing about result shape, ordering, or how pagination interacts with filters. Adequate but with clear gaps given the absent output schema.

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 six parameters (limit, offset, status enum, date range, contract_id) are already documented in structured form. The description only echoes the filter categories, adding no new semantic detail, so 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 precise verb+resource ('List all payments') and names the filter dimensions, so an agent knows what it returns. It does not distinguish itself from near-siblings like list_off_cycle_payments or get_payment, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus list_off_cycle_payments, get_payment, or get_payment_status. The listing intent is implied by the verb, but no alternatives or exclusion conditions are provided.

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