List payments

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

With no annotations the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it discloses meaningful traits: reverse-chronological ordering, paging, and that test and live payments are interleaved with the is_test field to distinguish them. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and what a page of results contains, but the core behavioral context is present.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and how it is ordered, then usage, then a caveat about mixed test/live data. Every sentence carries information with 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?

For a two-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers ordering, paging, use cases, and the test/live mixing caveat. It could say more about result contents or lighten the agent's need to infer the response shape, but it is nearly complete.

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 limit and offset are already fully documented with defaults and bounds. The description only alludes to 'paging' without adding format or constraint details, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the merchant's payments') plus scope details: ordering (newest first) and paging. It also implicitly separates itself from get_payment by describing the external_id lookup and recent-activity review use cases, so an agent can distinguish it from its siblings.

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 says when to use it: to find a payment when only the external_id is known, or to review recent activity. However, it never names an alternative or an exclusion (e.g. use get_payment when you already have the payment id), so routing guidance is contextual rather than complete.

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