Payment summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that: it does not explain the local cache implied by the 'fresh' parameter, how the period/scope interacts with date_from/date_till, or what a 'tile' 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?

A single short sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but here brevity reflects under-specification rather than discipline. There is room to add one clarifying clause at no structural cost.

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?

A 7-parameter analytics tool with no output schema needs the description to define what the summary contains and how scope interacts with date range and pagination. The description leaves the return shape, the meaning of 'tiles', and the cache behavior behind 'fresh' entirely unexplained.

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%, so per the baseline this scores 3. The description does not clarify the most ambiguous parameter — 'scope' as a 'Period key used by the panel' — nor how scope relates to the optional date_from/date_till range, but it is not obligated to when the schema documents every field.

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 names the resource ('payments') and the output shape ('summary tiles'), which is more than a bare restatement of the title, but 'summary tiles' is undefined and 'for a period' is too vague to distinguish this from siblings like payment_rows or stats_dashboard. An agent can guess it's an aggregated read, but not what the aggregates are.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over payment_rows, checkout_transactions, or stats_dashboard, and no prerequisites stated. The only implicit signal is that 'summary' contrasts with row-level tools, which the agent must infer entirely on its own.

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