Get client payments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only, non-destructive behavior is covered. The description adds little beyond the purpose; it does not disclose additional traits like pagination, ordering, or required context beyond the client identifier. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, compact sentence that communicates the core action clearly. It is front-loaded and avoids any unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose but does not mention return format, pagination, or any filtering behavior. The openWorldHint annotation hints at complete listing, but the description alone leaves these aspects unspecified.

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?

The schema has a single 'uuid' parameter with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by implying the uuid identifies the client whose payments are listed, but it does not explicitly state that uuid is the client's unique identifier. This adds some meaning but leaves room for ambiguity about the parameter's exact role.

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 ('List') and resource ('a client's payments'), clearly indicating the tool retrieves payment records for a client. It distinguishes itself from sibling payment tools like add_payment and update_payment by focusing on 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?

The description implies usage (when you need a client's payments) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_client_simulations or list_clients. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, making the guidance only implicit.

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