get_customer_payments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions pagination by cursor, which is a key trait, but it does not describe what happens when no payments exist, the response format, or any default behavior (e.g., default limit). For a read-only list operation, this is minimal but misses important runtime details like cursor handling semantics.

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, compact sentence that states the core purpose and the pagination trait. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given there is no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters with zero schema descriptions, the description is too sparse to fully equip an agent. It lacks details on cursor semantics, output shape, and expected behavior. An agent would likely have questions about pagination flow and what fields are returned. This is below the minimum viable completeness for a tool of this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameter meanings. It does not explicitly tie 'after' to the cursor, nor does it explain 'limit' or the purpose of 'external_id' beyond what the name implies. The only hint is 'paginado por cursor', which indirectly suggests 'after' is a cursor token. This is insufficient given how much responsibility falls on the description.

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 tool returns a customer's payment history ('Histórico de pagamentos de um cliente') and specifies it covers recurring and one-off payments, plus pagination. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_payment (single payment) and get_customer_subscriptions (subscriptions). The verb+resource is precise and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool (to fetch a full payment history) but does not explicitly explain when not to use it or name alternatives. It does not contrast with get_payment or other list tools, so an agent must infer the appropriate context. No explicit routing to a sibling tool is provided.

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