hcm_search_payment_methods

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description's main addition is the sensitive flag requirement, which is useful context beyond the annotation. It doesn't disclose what data is returned or any rate limits, but the sensitive access requirement is the key behavioral trait. No contradiction with 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?

The description is two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the sensitive access note following. It's efficient and doesn't waste words, though it could be structured with a clearer hierarchy for the sensitive note.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description is incomplete for an agent to use correctly without external knowledge. It doesn't explain the finder parameter, expected return format, or pagination behavior, and it doesn't note that there are no required parameters. The sensitive requirement is highlighted, but operational parameters are left undocumented.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it doesn't explain any parameter semantics. The parameter names (q, limit, finder, offset) are somewhat self-explanatory, but 'finder' is ambiguous. The description adds no parameter meaning, so a 3 is generous given the low coverage.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair ('Search payment methods') and the SENSITIVE note adds specificity. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from other search tools like hcm_search_bank_accounts or hcm_search_contacts, but the resource name is distinct enough. The action is clear for an agent.

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 description notes the sensitive requirement (ORACLE_HCM_SENSITIVE=1 and approval unless SENSITIVE_WRITE), which implies when to use it, but doesn't contrast with alternative search tools or provide exclusion criteria. The agent knows it's a sensitive read but not when to prefer this over other search tools.

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