list_tenders

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

The description adds the authorization requirement (MERCHANT_R) that is not present in the annotations, providing important context for safe invocation. It also confirms read-only behavior consistent with readOnlyHint=true, and the examples clarify the scope of the returned data, which goes beyond the bare annotation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the resource, examples, and a permission requirement in a compact form, every clause earning its place.

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?

For a parameter-less, read-only list tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states the resource, enumerates sample contents, and specifies auth. No additional return-format or pagination details are necessary given the schema and simple nature of the tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema requires no explanation. The description adds value by explaining the semantic content of the result set (tender types with examples), which supports understanding of the output without needing parameter details. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and this description is adequate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource ('the merchant's tender types') while giving concrete examples (payment methods: cash, credit, custom). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_payments, which deal with transaction records, and list_credits/list_refunds, which are different financial objects.

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 description clearly implies when to use this tool (when you need to view tender types) and notes a prerequisite (Requires MERCHANT_R). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or contrast with sibling list tools, so it stops short of the 'explicit when/when-not' level.

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