list_tenant_payments

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that raw headers, authorization hashes, and internal metadata are never returned, adding valuable context about data sensitivity and redaction. It also implies read-only behavior, though it does not explicitly state it as safe. The description effectively supplements the schema.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the purpose, then add authorization and data exclusion details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

While the description provides authorization and sensitivity context, it lacks details on the structure of returned payment records (e.g., fields, format). Given no output schema and moderate complexity, the description could be more complete by describing typical return fields or pagination behavior beyond the cursor parameter.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter comments (e.g., 'Opaque keyset cursor', 'Page size. Server default 50, max 200'). The tool description adds overall context but does not enhance parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, achieving the baseline of 3.

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 tool lists redacted tenant x402 payment records for a project, specifying the exact HTTP endpoint and the nature of the data (redacted, for priced function web routes). This provides a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings as there are no direct payment-listing alternatives.

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 includes required permissions (`project.tenant_payments.read`) and who can use it (org developer+ or read-scoped grant), which is helpful for deciding when to use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or comparisons to alternative tools, leaving room for improvement.

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