list_payment_methods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond that: the response is paginated and carries page, last_page, and total, which tells the agent to expect paged results. It says nothing about default page size, ordering, or what fields a payment method record contains.

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?

Two short sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded and the return-shape note second. There is no filler or redundancy, though the pagination sentence is terse enough that it may leave the agent wanting more detail.

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 six-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description correctly fills the return-shape gap by naming the pagination fields. However, it leaves the filter, sort, and fieldset parameters unexplained and does not describe what a payment method record looks like, so it is only adequate rather than complete.

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 67%, with q, sort, fieldset, and company_id documented in the schema itself while page and per_page have no schema descriptions. The description only echoes the pagination concept and adds no syntax, default, or filtering guidance (e.g., what values q accepts for this resource) beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource ("Elenca metodo di pagamento mostrato in fattura") and gives a concrete example (bonifico con IBAN), so an agent knows this is a read/list operation over payment methods. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_payment_method or list_payment_accounts, so it does not reach the sibling-differentiation bar for 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointers to alternatives. The phrase "mostrato in fattura" implies the scope is payment methods as they appear on invoices, but an agent must infer when to call this instead of get_payment_method or list_payment_accounts.

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