Search payments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: filters combine with AND, date bounds are inclusive, and invoice application is not a filter with a pointer to LinkedTxn entries. No contradictions with annotations.

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 tightly written sentences: purpose, use cases, and behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant facts (read-only, filter combination, exclusions) are front-loaded without redundancy.

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 a full output schema present and annotations covering read-only/idempotency, the description only needs to supply usage context and behavioral constraints. It does so thoroughly, including the non-obvious LinkedTxn caveat and pagination-aware filter semantics. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces inclusive date bounds and AND-combination, but these are already stated in individual parameter descriptions. It adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Find') and resource ('payments') along with the key filtering dimensions (customer Id, transaction-date range). It further distinguishes itself from single-payment retrieval by framing the use case of locating a payment that settled an invoice, and implicitly separates from list_payments by specifying search criteria.

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 gives two concrete usage scenarios ('reconcile what a customer has paid' and 'locate the payment that settled an invoice'). It also provides a clear boundary by warning that invoice application is not a filter and directing the agent to LinkedTxn entries. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the usage context is strong enough to guide selection.

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