List bePaid transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are paginated, returned as compact rows, and test transactions are excluded by bePaid. It stops short of noting rate limits or that pagination is via the report API's page mechanism.

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, no filler, with the core purpose and the period scope front-loaded and the test-transaction exclusion appended as a qualifier.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only source for return-shape information, and 'compact rows' is vague; it also never explains how pagination is performed (page parameter, cursor, or repeated limit-based calls). Adequate for selecting the tool, thin for using it correctly.

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 83%, so the schema already documents from/to, limit, and date_type. The description only echoes the period concept and adds nothing about the undocumented 'status' parameter or the non-obvious defaults (status=successful, date_type=paid_at) that materially change results.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('bePaid transactions') scoped to a period, and adds the nature of the result ('compact rows'). It implicitly contrasts with sibling bepaid_get_transaction (single) and bepaid_export_transactions (export), but never names them, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 period framing implies when this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternatives (bepaid_export_transactions for bulk export, bepaid_get_transaction for single lookup). An agent must infer the routing decision from the name alone.

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