List charges

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: ordering ('newest first'), the absence of a total, and pagination termination semantics ('next_cursor is set while a full page comes back') — a quirk that would otherwise cause an agent to stop paging early. The empty-result precondition explains a confusing zero-row outcome.

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-loads the resource and return shape, then filters, then pagination and empty-state caveats — a sensible order with essentially no filler. The second sentence is long and comma-chained, but every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so well: nested payments with amount, tax, refunded amount and card, plus ordering and cursor semantics. It stops short of naming the response envelope or the per-page default, but nothing critical to a correct call is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so limit, cursor, search and the date bounds are already documented. The description only restates the filters in prose ('Filter by booking day and search by customer') plus the cursor hint, adding little syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema; baseline 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Charged bookings with their payments and refunds') and immediately scopes it to charged bookings only, which separates it from list_bookings and list_invoices. It also enumerates the sub-resources returned (charge, extras, tips, fees, refunds), so an agent knows exactly what kind of row this returns.

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?

Gives concrete selection context: filter by booking day, search by customer, and an explicit empty-state condition ('empty until the store charges through a connected payment processor or marks bookings paid in cash'). It also routes to a sibling ('booking_id and payment_log_id go to refund_charge'), though it never explicitly contrasts with list_bookings or list_invoices.

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