list_payment_methods

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'List' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is a useful behavioral signal. However, it does not mention response format, possible empty results, or any other operational details beyond the listing action.

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, well-structured sentence states the action, object, and scope without any filler. It is front-loaded and immediately parseable.

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 one-parameter list operation, the description is nearly complete. Since there is no output schema, a mention of what the returned list contains (e.g., operator codes or names) would make it fully self-sufficient, but the core usage is clear.

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?

There is only one parameter, country, and the schema already fully documents it with an enum and examples. The description adds no new meaning beyond restating that the tool works 'for a given country,' so the schema-driven baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the exact resource ('available mobile money payment methods (operators)'), and scopes it by country. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_balance, initialize_payment, and list_configured_countries.

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 makes its usage context clear: use it when you need available payment methods for a specific country. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when to select it.

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