list-payments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior ('If many payments are returned, ask the user if they want to see the next page'), which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when no payments match filters.

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 appropriately sized with 4 sentences that each add value. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by details about what's shown, filtering options, and behavioral guidance. No wasted words, though the pagination guidance could be slightly more concise.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and parameter guidance but lacks details about authentication, error handling, response format, and the 'page' parameter's semantics. It's adequate but has clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 5 parameters, the description compensates well by explaining the filtering options ('filter payments by invoice number, invoice ID, payment ID, or invoice reference'). It maps clearly to 4 of the 5 parameters, though it doesn't mention the 'page' parameter explicitly. This provides substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 the verb ('List') and resource ('payments in Xero'), specifies what payments are shown ('payments made against invoices'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on payments rather than invoices, contacts, or other entities. It provides specific details about included data fields.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('List payments in Xero') and includes explicit guidance about asking users for filtering preferences before running. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools for different scenarios.

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