Zahlungen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond them: results are ordered newest first. It says nothing about pagination, result volume, or what happens when all three filters are null.

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 compact sentence whose head noun and the newest-first ordering are front-loaded, with the type enumeration in a parenthetical that can be skipped. No filler, though it could have spent the same space on the filter behavior instead.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and all three optional filters are documented in the schema. What is missing is guidance on how the filters combine (AND vs. overriding), whether the result is bounded, and how this list relates to record_payment — meaningful gaps for a filtered list tool, but not severe.

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 each of year, tenant_id and payment_type already documented in German, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only hints that payments are tenant-related and gives a loose paraphrase of the type values, adding little beyond the schema.

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 names the resource precisely ("Eingegangene Zahlungen von Mietern") and enumerates the included categories (Miete, Vorauszahlungen, Kaution, Nachzahlungen), so an agent knows this is a read/list of received tenant payments rather than of invoices or statements. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the phrase "eingegangene" implicitly separates it from record_payment.

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?

Usage is only implied: "eingegangene Zahlungen" signals already-booked payments, contrasting with recording a new one, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative such as list_invoices. The agent must infer the choice from the resource noun alone.

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