myob_list_payments

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

The description provides some behavioral info (routes through /api/tools/invoke with JWT, tenant, company scope) but fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or its effect on data. No mention of pagination, rate limits, or result characteristics. With no annotations, the burden is higher, and the description 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 very short and to the point, but it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points for parameters). It front-loads the purpose. However, the minimalism reduces its helpfulness; a bit more detail would not hurt conciseness.

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 as a generic connector operation and the presence of an output schema (not detailed in description), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to construct the arguments, what the output contains, or any edge cases. For a tool among many payment listers, more context is needed.

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 input schema has one parameter 'arguments' with 0% description coverage. The description adds that it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which is minimal and does not specify expected keys or format. The schema does not describe the parameter, so the description should compensate but does so inadequately.

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 it lists payments for MYOB, which is a specific verb-resource pair. However, it does not elaborate on what kind of payments (e.g., customer payments, vendor payments) or differentiate from similar list tools like 'billcom_list_payments' or 'quickbooks_list_payments'. The purpose is clear but minimal.

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 alternative list_payments tools from other systems. No context on prerequisites, typical scenarios, or constraints. The description only mentions routing and scope, not usage context.

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