list_installments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns paginated results and plan summaries, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover other aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving gaps for a read operation.

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 two sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose and efficiently adding usage context. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 read tool with 3 parameters, 67% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and behavioral hints but lacks details on return format, error cases, or the 'address' parameter. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps given the complexity.

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 67% (2 out of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the 'address' parameter. Baseline is 3 since the schema does moderate lifting, but the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented 'address' 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('existing installment plans'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_installment_plan' by indicating it returns multiple plans rather than a single one, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage for viewing pagination and plan summaries, suggesting it's for browsing multiple plans. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'get_installment_plan' for single plans or provide exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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