List Contract Payments

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

Annotations already convey safety (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint). The description adds value by explaining pagination behavior (page/per_page, metadata in response) and required parameters, expanding beyond the schema. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise (4 sentences) and well-structured. However, there is slight redundancy between 'paginated overview' and 'Returns a paginated JSON array'. Overall efficient.

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 no output schema, the description covers return format, pagination, required parameters, and API context. It lacks response field details or error handling, but for a list tool this is adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. Description adds meaning by mentioning pagination control and that response includes metadata, which goes beyond schema descriptions. This justifies a 4.

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 it returns a list of Contract Payments and can be used for pagination, ID lookup, and filtering. It specifies required parameters. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_commitment_contracts, which may cause confusion.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'enumerate Commitments when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It does not mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear.

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