List payments waiting for funds

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 without help from the description. The description adds that results are scoped to the account and filtered to pending status, but says nothing about ordering, result volume, or pagination for what could be a long-lived 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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the defining constraint (still waiting for payment) is placed where it is read first. It is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than tight completeness.

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 zero-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description covers what the set is but omits how much comes back and whether the list is paginated or capped. An agent could invoke it correctly, but cannot predict the shape or size of the response.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to carry; the baseline for an empty schema applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with or duplicates parameter documentation.

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 defines a specific resource set: payments on the account still awaiting customer payment. It is clear what is returned, but it never differentiates from siblings such as get_payment or get_payments_by_order, and the verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated.

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 status filter (still waiting for the customer to pay) implicitly tells an agent when this list is the right choice over a general payment lookup. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no named alternative for fetching payments in other states.

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