list_beneficiary_payments

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states 'returns a list' which implies read-only but lacks details on pagination, sorting, performance, or data freshness. Minimal transparency beyond the tool name.

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?

Single sentence of 9 words, highly concise and front-loaded. However, it may be too minimal for clarity.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and low param coverage. Description does not explain return format, pagination behavior, or any limitations. Incomplete for a list tool that likely returns paginated results.

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 only 33% (uuid only). Description adds no parameter-level details beyond what schema provides. Page and per_page parameters have no description in either schema or tool description.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'returns' and resource 'list of payments' with qualifier 'to a specific beneficiary'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_beneficiaries and list_trade_payments by specifying beneficiary focus.

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?

No guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention pagination constraints or comparison with list_trade_payments.

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