list_intents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are the most recent intents including status and details, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention potential caveats such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error handling, so coverage is partial but not negligible.

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 sentence that starts with the action verb and contains only essential information. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, yet the description still leaves gaps. It mentions 'status and details' but doesn't specify what fields constitute 'details' or how the list is ordered (beyond 'most recent'). It also omits any default limit behavior. While adequate for a basic listing, it is not fully complete for an agent without prior context.

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%, and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. The parameter is only defined by its name and default value, which offers minimal semantic value. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent to guess that 'limit' likely controls the number of returned items.

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), the resource (payment intents), and includes scope (most recent) and content (status and details). It is specific and understandable, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_intent or get_history, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_intent for a single intent or get_history for transaction history. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate contexts, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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