Get Instances Payables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that—no note on pagination behavior, filter combination semantics, default page size, or ordering of results.

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?

Two words are technically concise but represent under-specification rather than efficiency. There is nothing front-loaded because there is effectively no content.

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 10-parameter, filter-and-paginate list endpoint with no output schema, the description is wholly inadequate—it explains neither the resource, the filters, the pagination contract (limit/offset vs. ending_before/starting_after), nor what is returned.

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?

Ten parameters with only 40% schema description coverage, yet the description mentions none of them. The enum-bearing filters (type, status, limit, offset) and free-text filters (customer_name, beneficiary_name) are left undocumented in prose, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"List Payables" restates the tool name/title rather than explaining what a payable is or how the listing behaves. It does not distinguish this collection endpoint from siblings like GetV1InstancesPayablesById or PostV1InstancesPayables.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus GetV1InstancesPayablesById, the create/delete payables tools, or other instance-scoped list endpoints. An agent must infer everything from the tool name and schema.

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