List settlement transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: the absence of a date filter in Klarna's API, the minor-units amount convention, and pagination via size/offset. It stops short of auth or rate-limit details, but the disclosed API constraint is the important behavioral fact.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and returned fields, then filters, then the workaround for date ranges, then pagination. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 returned fields (amount in minor units, order id, capture/refund ids, merchant references, payout reference) and covers filtering and pagination. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly, including the cross-tool workflow for time-bounded queries.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining that payment_reference is a payout reference (obtained from list_payouts) and that the two filters can be combined ('and/or'), which is semantic linkage the schema's field descriptions do not convey.

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 (List) and resource (settlement transactions), enumerates the transaction types (SALE, RETURN, FEE, REVERSAL) and the fields returned, and is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_payouts and list_disputes.

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?

Gives explicit filter conditions (by payout payment_reference and/or order_id) and, crucially, routes the agent to the sibling tool for date-range queries: 'find the payouts with list_payouts and pass each payment_reference', because the API has no date filter. This is exactly when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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