list_payments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail about the return contents, including totals per currency and invoice-number reporting. It implies no side effects or destructive behavior. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, but these are minor for a simple read-only list.

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 two sentences with no wasted words: purpose is front-loaded, return fields are listed compactly, and the alternative action is routed in a single final clause. It avoids repeating schema or annotation information.

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 list with no output schema, the description conveys the key return data an agent needs, plus the relevant sibling action. The response shape is predictable from the described fields, and nothing essential is missing for selecting and invoking this tool correctly.

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%, with workspace_id and origin already fully described in the input schema. The description only reiterates the workspace scope and adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource as 'Payment schedule for a workspace' and specifies the returned content: per-file amount, due date, paid/pending state, payment method, invoice number, and paid/unpaid totals per currency. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling pay_invoice by explicitly directing the agent there for payment actions.

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 establishes that this is the Payments-tab listing and gives an explicit routing rule: 'To pay one, use pay_invoice.' It does not compare itself with list_payment_methods or state exclusions, but the read-versus-pay alternative is clear enough for correct selection.

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