list_payments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it discloses the return shape (per-file payments with state, method, invoice number) and the aggregation behavior (paid/unpaid totals per currency), which an agent needs to interpret 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?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the return contents, then the routing note. The field enumeration is long-ish but each item is genuinely informative about output, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so well, including the per-currency totals. It leaves pagination/sorting behavior unstated, a minor gap for a list tool.

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 workspace_id and origin are already documented in the schema; the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the implied workspace scope. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Payment schedule for a workspace') and goes further by enumerating the returned fields (amount, due date, paid/pending, method, invoice number, per-currency totals). It is immediately distinguishable from the write-side sibling pay_invoice, which it names.

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?

Explicitly routes the write action away from this tool ('To pay one, use pay_invoice'), giving the agent a clear read-vs-pay decision. It does not, however, distinguish this from other list-style siblings such as list_payment_methods or explain when a caller would reach for this versus the Payments tab in general.

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