List standing orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the meaningful default-filter behavior (active only, cancelled hidden, awaiting-review orders omitted) that annotations do not convey. It still says nothing about pagination or ordering of results.

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 tight sentences with the resource and returned fields front-loaded, followed by the filter default and the exclusion. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields, and it covers default filtering and the awaiting-review exclusion for a read-only list tool. Missing only the effect of the 'detail' parameter and any pagination/limit behavior.

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 75%, and the schema already documents accountUid, categoryUid defaults and includeCancelled's default. The description reinforces the account/space scoping and the default-active semantics but never explains the 'detail' enum (compact vs full), leaving one parameter's effect undocumented in both places.

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 and resource ('Lists standing orders'), the scope (paid from the main account or a space), and enumerates the returned fields (payee name, amount, reference, schedule, next date). The plural naming plus 'get_standing_order' as a sibling makes the list-vs-single distinction obvious without opening either schema.

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 clear operating context: results are active-only by default, includeCancelled widens the set, and orders awaiting review are excluded. It does not, however, route the agent between this tool and siblings such as get_standing_order or list_standing_order_upcoming_payments, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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