List payments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns both line items (with prices) and summary totals, giving useful insight into the response structure beyond what annotations state.

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 avoids redundancy. It communicates the core contents (items, fees, totals) without any fluff or over-explanation.

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, parameterless read-only tool with an output schema provided. The description sufficiently conveys what is returned (payments, fees, totals) and needs no extra context for an AI agent to invoke it correctly, especially given the strong annotations.

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?

With zero parameters, the input schema is trivially 100% covered. The description doesn't need to explain parameters; it inherently adds no parameter semantics. Per the rubric, zero params yields a baseline score of 4.

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 tool returns payment items and fees with prices plus totals for due and paid amounts. This specific content distinguishes it from other list_* siblings (e.g., list_notices, list_polls) and aligns with the name 'list_payments'.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description—it's a read-only listing for payment data—but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives or exclusions. The description doesn't mention scenarios like checking outstanding balances or interacting with a specific payment context.

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