billcom_list_payments

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

The description discloses authentication requirements (JWT, tenant, company scope) and routing, which adds some behavioral context beyond the name. However, it does not specify whether the operation is read-only, has pagination, or any limitations. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but falls short.

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 short (two sentences) but includes unnecessary technical routing info that does not help in tool selection or invocation. It could be more concise by focusing on the operation's purpose and parameter details.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (connector operation with many siblings), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return values (despite an output schema existing), filtering capabilities, or how it relates to similar tools like billcom_list_bills. The agent would lack key information for correct use.

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?

The only parameter, 'arguments', is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds minimal meaning. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain what keys or values the JSON should contain, leaving the agent without essential usage details.

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 mentions 'list_payments' as the operation, indicating it lists payments, which is clear enough but lacks specifics like what payment data is returned or how it differs from sibling tools like billcom_list_bills. It does not distinguish itself from other list tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only provides technical routing information (JWT, tenant, company scope) but no contextual usage advice.

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