List payments

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

Annotations already declare this is a safe, non-destructive, closed-world read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds the pagination trait, which is modest value beyond that. It says nothing about result ordering, scope, or auth requirements.

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?

A single tight sentence with the key trait (pagination) fronted and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though too terse to route between siblings.

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 one-parameter list tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema to explain, this is minimally viable. It omits what a payment record contains and how it relates to list_invoices, which the agent would need to choose 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%, so the single 'page' parameter is already documented as 'Page number'. The description's mention of pagination adds no syntax, size, or default detail beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List payment history'), which is clear on its own. However, it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling list_invoices or get_network_payment_methods, leaving the boundary between 'payments' and 'invoices' implicit.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite list_invoices and get_network_payment_methods being obvious near-neighbors. The agent must infer the selection criteria.

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