List Contract Payments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Read-only' statement is redundant but harmless. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: pagination behavior, response shape (JSON array), remaining pages reporting, and failure modes with HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404).

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 thorough but every sentence adds value: purpose, use case, response format, pagination, read-only guarantee, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded and well-organized, with no filler or repetition.

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 operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: what is returned, pagination, error behavior, required parameters, and the API endpoint. The annotations cover safety and idempotency. There is no significant missing context for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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%, with each parameter described. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining that page and per_page control pagination and that the response reports how many pages remain, and by highlighting required parameters (project_id, contract_id). This adds meaningful operational 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?

The description starts with a specific verb+resource combination: 'Return a list of Contract Payments.' It further clarifies the intended use cases (discovering payments, looking up an id before calling dependent tools), which differentiates it from sibling payment tools like show_contract_payment or create_contract_payment.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover contract payments or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It does not name specific alternative tools or exclusions, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to select this over other list/show tools.

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