List payments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. Everything the description mentions (date range, states, search, sorting, pagination) is restated from the schema; it adds nothing about result volume when unscoped, rate limits, or whether continuationToken supersedes pageIndex.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the primary scope rule is front-loaded before the capability summary. Nothing is repeated and nothing needs trimming.

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 12-parameter, all-optional list tool with a fully documented schema and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers scope and the main filter families adequately. It stops just short of guiding the agent on pagination strategy or the cost of an unscoped org-wide query, which are the remaining items an agent would want.

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 100%, including enum members and defaults for pageSize, sortField, sortOrder and the orgSlug environment fallback, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description only lists parameter families at a level the schema already exceeds (e.g. the formType+formSlug pairing rule is stated in both schema fields).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List payments') and adds real scope: org-wide by default, narrowed to a single form when formType + formSlug are supplied. The list-vs-get distinction against sibling helloasso_get_payment is self-evident from the verb, so it doesn't need to name the sibling explicitly — hence 4 rather than 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 one conditional rule ('or of one form when formType + formSlug are given') is genuine usage guidance, but the rest ('Supports date range, payment states, search, sorting and pagination') is a capability list, not when-to-use guidance. There is no statement of when not to use it or when to prefer helloasso_get_payment or helloasso_list_orders instead.

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