listPayouts

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

The description provides some behavioral context beyond the schema: it notes a rate limit (100 requests per 1m) and declares read-only status with the HTTP method (GET). However, with no annotations, it leaves out pagination behavior, sorting, or return format, which are relevant for a list endpoint.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It includes useful constraints (rate limit, read-only) without fluff, though the inclusion of the raw HTTP path is slightly redundant.

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 simple list operation with two optional parameters, the description is minimally adequate but omits return structure, pagination details, and any edge cases. Without an output schema, the agent lacks information about the response shape, making the tool incomplete for correct invocation.

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 schema defines 'limit' and 'offset' but provides no descriptions, and the description does not mention them at all. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without guidance on how these parameters affect the call.

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 states the action 'List' and the resource 'Stripe Connect payouts', distinguishing it from siblings like listCoupons and listTransactions. It is specific enough for an agent to identify the tool's purpose without ambiguity.

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 tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or how it relates to other payout-related tools (e.g., getConnectBalance). The agent must infer usage from the resource name alone.

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