beel_list_payment_connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: Test and Live connections are independent, results are filtered by the mode of the key used, and a NIF with no connections returns 200 with an empty list. This enriches the agent's expectations materially.

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 information-dense paragraphs with the core purpose and return-shape front-loaded, followed by the key mode caveat and a reference endpoint line. The endpoint line is slightly redundant given the tool name, but it is short and provides useful HTTP context; there is no wasted prose.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema list tool whose safety profile is fully covered by annotations, the description is complete: ownership scope, status field, empty-list behavior, mode independence, and the endpoint. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret its result 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%, and the single parameter company_id already carries a rich definition explaining context derivation, the BeeL-Active-Company header's irrelevance, and the 403/404-equivalent behavior. With the schema doing this heavy lifting, baseline 3 applies; the description adds only marginal value on top, reinforcing the owns-or-manages scope that the schema also mentions.

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 precise verb and resource ('Returns the payment provider connections of a NIF'), scopes it ('your account owns or manages'), and names what each result carries (provider-side account, status). The empty-list-200 behavior further pins down semantics, and it is clearly distinguished from lifecycle siblings beel_initiate_payment_connection and beel_disconnect_payment_connection by describing a read-only listing.

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?

Gives an explicit intended use ('Use it to check whether a NIF you provisioned has completed its connection') and the empty-list interpretation. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the surrounding connections lifecycle makes the read-only role inferable; the Test-vs-Live mode caveat is a valuable operational guideline.

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