Pay: payments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it enumerates the returned fields, states pagination via page/limit, and discloses the negative capability (no refunds). It stops short of noting rate limits or sort order, so it is not a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then scope, then routing. Efficient overall, though the opening 'List recent payments. Lists card payments...' is a mild restatement that could be merged.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (id, amount, currency, status, description, date). With two optional, fully documented params and annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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% and both parameters are already documented with their defaults. The phrase 'paged by page and limit' restates what the schema says and adds no syntax, bounds, or edge-case detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List recent payments') with the exact scope: card payments taken from end users via AnythinkPay (Stripe). It also names the sibling it is not, `pay_subscriptions_list`, so an agent can distinguish it 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?

Explicit routing: 'For recurring billing records use pay_subscriptions_list.' It also rules out a whole class of intent with 'there is no refund tool,' telling the agent not to search for one. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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