get_customer_payment_methods

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears sole responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states only that the tool fetches stored payment methods, with no mention of read-only semantics, response format, pagination behavior, or lack of side effects. This is a minimal restatement of the tool's name.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is somewhat terse and could include more useful context without becoming verbose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values or pagination details, but it does not. It only states what the tool does, omitting any information about response structure, default page sizes (though 'first' has a default in schema), or the presence of the 'after' cursor for paging. The tool is a simple read, but the description leaves the agent without enough context to anticipate the output.

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?

The input schema documents all three parameters with descriptions (customerId, after, first) and covers 100% of parameter semantics. The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and names the resource 'stored payment methods for a customer'. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'get_customer_payment_method' (singular) by using the plural 'methods', and from mutation tools like 'revoke_customer_payment_method'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the similar 'get_customer_payment_method' (singular) or when to avoid it. The context is implied only by the name and description, with no alternatives or exclusions mentioned.

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