list_payments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the optional booking filter adds scope clarity. But it does not explicitly state that it is safe, nor does it disclose any side effects, auth requirements, or pagination behavior beyond what can be inferred from the parameter names.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and optional filter with no unnecessary words. It is concise and every phrase earns its place.

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?

The tool has only two optional parameters and an output schema, so the description covers the core purpose and the main filtering option. The max_items parameter is not described but is intuitive, and return values are covered by the output schema. This is sufficient for a simple 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the booking_id parameter ('optionally for a single booking'), but does not describe max_items, which is left to be inferred from its name. Since max_items is fairly self-explanatory, the partial compensation is adequate for this simple tool.

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 clearly states the action (List) and resource (guest payments), and the optional booking filter distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_refunds and list_bookings. It is specific and avoids ambiguity.

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 by stating the tool lists guest payments and can be filtered by booking, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives such as list_refunds or list_bookings, nor does it state any exclusions.

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