list_invoice_payments

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. Only states it lists records; no mention of read-only nature, authorization needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior. Lacks critical transparency for a data retrieval tool.

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?

Extremely concise (two sentences), front-loaded purpose, and efficient parameter explanations. No superfluous content.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are not needed. However, with 3 parameters and 0% schema descriptions, the description provides some context but omits default behavior for page_size, sorting, or how this differs from similar list tools like 'list_invoices'. Reasonable but could be more complete.

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 0%, so description compensates partially. Explains 'status' with possible values and 'payable_id' as filter by invoice ID. However, 'page_size' is not mentioned, leaving a gap for that parameter.

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?

Clearly states action ('List invoice payments') and resource ('invoice payments'). Mentions two parameters (status, payable_id) that add specificity. Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'record_invoice_payment' and 'list_invoices'.

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?

Implies usage through parameter descriptions but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives like 'record_invoice_payment' or general 'list_invoices'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites stated.

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