List wFirma payments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scoping constraint ('one explicitly selected company') but does not add behavioral context such as pagination behavior, ordering, output shape, or rate limits. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the core scoping requirement is stated immediately.

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 simple read-only list operation with fully described parameters and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not hint at the returned payment fields, but 'List payments' plus the get_payment sibling makes the expected behavior reasonably clear.

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 structured schema already documents all three parameters clearly. The description reinforces the need for an explicit company selection but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List payments' for a scoped entity ('one explicitly selected wFirma client company'). This clearly distinguishes the operation from sibling list tools for expenses, invoices, and contractors, and from the singular wfirma_get_payment.

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 clearly establishes the usage context: payments are listed per explicitly selected company, not across companies. The parameter description further reinforces this by stating companyId comes from wfirma_list_companies and never a NIP. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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