Payments received from a customer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that a total is included in the response, which is genuinely new information. However, it says nothing about limits, ordering, pagination, or what happens when a customer has no payments, leaving real behavioral gaps for a query tool.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the return scope front-loaded before the usage guidance. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and clear safety annotations, so most of the burden is already carried elsewhere. The description plus the mention of a returned total is close to sufficient, missing only edge-case behavior for empty results.

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 both parameters are already documented ('Customer name or numeric ID', 'received on or after this date'). The description's phrasing mirrors the schema rather than extending it, so the 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('payments received from one customer') plus a temporal scope ('since a given date'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from getOverdueInvoices and getReceivablesAging by focusing on payments actually received rather than invoices owed, but it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Use this for questions about whether or when a customer has paid' gives a clear positive usage condition tied to a real agent intent. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or pointing to the sibling tools (getReceivablesAging, getCustomerSummary) for adjacent questions.

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