get_recipients

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose pagination and enumerates returned fields and their value domains (e.g., defaultPaymentMethod options, status active/deleted), which is useful return-shape context. However, it omits auth requirements, rate limits, and any behavior around deleted recipients, leaving meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by a compact list of return fields. Every sentence earns its place: the first establishes purpose and pagination, the second describes the response shape. No filler.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields, which is important for a list tool. The input schema is fully described. What prevents a 5 is the absence of guidance on pagination cursor usage, default inclusion of deleted recipients, or auth context, though these are minor for a read-only list.

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 the input schema already fully documents limit, order, start_after, and end_before. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides. A baseline 3 is appropriate 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve a paginated list of all payment recipients.' This clearly distinguishes the operation as a bulk list, but it does not explicitly name the singular sibling get_recipient as the alternative for fetching one recipient. So the purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_recipient or the other list/get tools. It implies usage through 'list of all payment recipients,' but lacks any when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite context.

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