beel_list_payment_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining that events belong to the connection rather than the NIF directly, that only that connection's events are returned, and that a missing connection yields 404. It also states the 'most recent first' ordering. These are behavioral details not in the annotations, though some like pagination are left to the schema.

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 compact and well-structured: a first sentence stating purpose and ordering, a bolded scoping clarification, a direct statement of the 404 case, and the endpoint. Every sentence earns its place, and the most actionable information is front-loaded. No fluff.

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 list operation with only 4 parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety (read-only, idempotent), the description is complete. It explains the ownership/management condition, the connection-scoping rule, the 404 error, and the ordering. The endpoint is provided. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing; output schema is not required for a list operation.

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 all parameters (company_id, provider, page, limit) have detailed descriptions in the input schema. The description does not add much new parameter-level meaning; it repeats that provider selects the connection and that company_id is the sole context source, which are already in the schema. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds marginal semantic value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and names the resource precisely: 'payment events received through the payment provider connection of a NIF (company) that your account owns or manages, most recent first.' It clearly distinguishes from single-event retrieval by the plural 'events' and the explicit use case of auditing charges. The scope is unambiguous, and the phrasing differentiates it from other list operations in the sibling set.

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 a clear intended use case ('Use it to audit the charges that produced an invoice and to find the ones that did not') and scopes the operation to connections of owned/managed NIFs. It does not explicitly name alternatives like beel_get_payment_event for single-event lookup, but the plural and audit purpose make the distinction clear. The explicit 404 case also adds contextual usage guidance.

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