Payout report (CSV)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds the return format (CSV text), the payload scope (all transactions for one payout), and the format provenance (Klarna's documented settlement report format). Pagination, size limits, or error behavior for an unknown payout are not disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and in what format before the usage hint. Minimal waste; the parenthetical format note is small but justified.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return format and content, which is what an agent most needs. The remaining gap is the meaning/source of payment_reference and behavior on invalid references.

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 0% for the single required parameter payment_reference, and the description only says 'for one payout' without clarifying whether that reference is the payout ID or a payment reference. An agent cannot tell from the definition what identifier value to supply or where to obtain it.

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?

States a specific verb (download), resource (settlement report for one payout, including its transactions) and output format (CSV text). The singular 'one payout' implicitly contrasts with the plural sibling get_payouts_summary_report_csv, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Use for reconciliation in a spreadsheet' gives a concrete usage context that separates it from the JSON get_payout/get_payout_summary tools. It does not, however, state exclusions or name a direct alternative (e.g., get_payouts_summary_report_csv for multiple payouts).

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