list_payments

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

The annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), which lowers the bar, but the description contributes no behavioral context whatsoever beyond the name. Notably, openWorldHint=true suggests the result set may be non-exhaustive or scope-dependent, yet the description never clarifies this or any pagination/filtering behavior. There is no contradiction between description and annotations.

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?

Two words with zero excess, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded scoping constraint, behavioral note, or routing hint — the description earns none of its potential explanatory value.

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 structured data is rich — full parameter coverage, safety annotations, and an output schema — so call mechanics and return values are covered. However, with 7 optional parameters and no required fields, the description never states the default scope of an unfiltered call, and the domain distinction between payments, payouts, and invoices is never addressed, leaving a meaningful gap for agent decision-making.

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% — all 7 parameters (to, from, limit, offset, status, tutor_id, student_id) carry meaningful descriptions in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies with the schema doing the heavy lifting.

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 'List Payments' is a verbatim restatement of the tool name 'list_payments' — a tautology that adds no meaning beyond the name itself. It identifies a verb and resource but provides zero differentiating information against related siblings such as get_payment, list_payouts, list_invoices, or tutor_earnings.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With over 60 sibling tools including other list_* operations and finance-related tools like list_payouts and tutor_earnings, the description leaves the agent with no basis for selecting this tool, and states no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing conditions.

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