List payouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description then adds real behavioral context: amounts are in minor units, the response includes a pagination object with total, and each payout carries a defined set of total fields. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the structured data, though it says nothing about rate limits or default page size behavior.

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 dense sentences with no filler: the resource definition and returned totals come first, then filtering and pagination. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the per-payout total fields, stating units (minor units), and describing the pagination envelope with total. An agent can call and interpret it correctly. Missing only edge behavior such as default page size or empty-result handling.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters with ranges, formats and defaults. The description only restates that filtering is by payout date range and currency and that size/offset drive pagination, adding the useful nuance that the date filter is on payout date rather than creation date, but no syntax beyond the schema. 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?

Names a specific verb (List) and resource (Klarna payouts), and defines the resource parenthetically as settlements to your bank account, which removes ambiguity. It also enumerates the per-payout totals returned. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like get_payout_summary or list_payouts_summary_report_csv, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

States that results can be filtered by payout date range and currency and are paginated via size/offset, which implies the intended usage pattern. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name the alternative tools (get_payout, get_payout_summary, the CSV report siblings) an agent should pick instead in other situations.

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