Payments for a payment order

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description only needs to add context. It does usefully disclose ordering (newest first) and the possible status values plus 'reasons', which an agent cannot infer from annotations. Pagination/limit behavior is left to the schema.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose and return shape are front-loaded before the usage hint. Every clause earns its place.

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 must convey what comes back, and it does: payment records ordered newest first, with status and rejection reasons. Read-only semantics are covered by annotations, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 67%: paymentOrderUid and limit carry schema descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, and it never clarifies the undocumented 'detail' enum (compact vs full). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the work but leaves one gap.

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+resource ('Lists the actual payments made under a payment order') with scope detail (newest first) and the returned status values. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_payment_order, which would fetch the order itself rather than its underlying payments.

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?

Explicitly says to use it after make_payment to confirm a payment went through, giving a concrete trigger condition. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming a competing sibling for the same data, so it falls just below the top band.

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