history

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that it spends no money, that the data source differs by mode, and that results are newest-first. This adds meaningful behavioral context that the annotations alone do not provide.

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 front-loaded with the core behavior and is information-dense without wasted words. Each clause contributes: mode behavior, ordering, safety, and use cases.

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 only two optional parameters fully covered by the schema and annotations covering safety properties, the description supplies the missing decision-relevant context: what data is shown, where it comes from, ordering, and when to use the tool. Nothing critical is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so both the agent and limit parameters are already well documented. The description does not add parameter-specific detail, but it does provide surrounding context about delegated vs. self-custody modes, which weakly relates to the agent parameter. 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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists recent payments. It further clarifies the two modes (server-side feed vs. locally recorded receipts) and provides concrete use cases, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like balance or pay.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: to reconcile payments, retrieve a past receipt, or audit spending. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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