accelo_list_payments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose concrete operational traits: page is 0-indexed and limit is capped at 100 results, which are genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about authentication/permission requirements, rate limits, or the shape of returned data.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and domain explanation, then uses a clean Args section. Every element is relevant, though the filter key list is dense and slightly overlong for a description.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the parameter side is well covered, but the description never indicates what a payment record returns (field names beyond method/receipt/currency) or whether results are paginated with a total count. That leaves a real gap for an agent invoking it.

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 the description must compensate and it does so thoroughly. It enumerates the filter keys (id, currency_id, method_id, receipt_id, created_by_staff_id, against_id/type, date_created_before/after, against object filter, order_by directions) plus the fields syntax and page/limit semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List payments from Accelo') and adds useful domain context that payments are money received against invoices with a method, receipt, and currency. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like accelo_get_payment or accelo_count_payments, but the list/count/get distinction is self-evident from the description.

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?

Gives practical usage hints (how to expand linked objects via fields, what the filter keys are) but never states when to use this tool versus the sibling get_payment, count_payments, or accelo_list_invoices. Usage is implied by the tool name rather than explained.

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