list_unit_payments

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits, but it only offers a high-level definition. It does not mention read-only nature, the meaning of the date range, or what the response contains, leaving significant behavioral context unstated.

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 extremely concise, using just two short phrases. Every word adds value and the core purpose is front-loaded, with no wasted verbiage.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not describe the return structure or how the date range affects results. The purpose is clear, but an agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior from this description alone.

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?

The description does not explain the from/to parameters or unitId beyond what the schema shows. Schema coverage is only 67% and even those descriptions are just format (YYYY-MM), not semantics, so the description fails to compensate for the gap.

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 identifies the tool as a bank-statement payment trail for an apartment, specifying cost types (cold/warm/NK). This distinguishes it from generic tools like list_bank_transactions, though it lacks an explicit verb.

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 phrase 'Source of rent-paid truth' implies this is the authoritative tool for verifying rent payments, providing implied usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases.

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