List Deleted Payouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by noting the response is a paginated JSON array with pagination metadata, which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Five concise, front-loaded sentences covering purpose, usage, response format, pagination, required parameters, and API reference. No extraneous content; every sentence earns 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?

Despite no output schema, the description mentions paginated JSON array and metadata, adequately informing agents. It includes required parameters and API endpoint. For a simple listing tool, this is complete and helpful.

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 only reiterates required parameters and pagination controls, adding minimal new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 all deleted payouts for a disbursement, specifying the verb 'Returns', the resource 'deleted payouts', and the scope 'for a disbursement'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_deleted_punch_items by focusing on payouts.

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?

Provides usage context: 'Use this to enumerate Payments when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, which would improve the score.

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