List payments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only behavior and pagination limitation. For a simple list operation, this is adequate transparency. No side effects, rate limits, or authentication details are mentioned, but the tool is straightforward.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains zero unnecessary words. Every sentence adds 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (two pagination parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It lacks explicit mention of the return format (list of payment objects), but the name and context imply it. The description covers the essential behavioral and usage aspects.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing basic meaning for 'top' and 'skip'. The description adds context that pagination is the only supported operation, but does not add new details beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'payments', and the context 'recorded against invoices in Karbon (read-only)'. It distinguishes itself from similar listing tools by noting the read-only nature and the specific endpoint constraints.

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 explicitly states that the tool supports pagination only and does not accept OData filters, guiding the agent on when to use this tool (for simple paginated lists) and when not to (if filtering is needed). It does not mention alternatives, but no other payment-listing sibling exists, making this sufficient.

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