get_payments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the payments are returned in, if there are rate limits, or how pagination works (relevant given limit/offset parameters). This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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?

The description is extremely concise with just two words, front-loading the core purpose without any wasted text. While this brevity contributes to clarity gaps in other dimensions, it's structurally efficient and earns full marks for conciseness.

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?

Given a tool with 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return values, or behavioral traits like pagination or auth needs, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds no information about the 'limit' and 'offset' parameters—it doesn't explain they're for pagination, their units, default values, or constraints. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Retrieve invoice payments' clearly states the verb (retrieve) and resource (invoice payments), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_invoice' or 'get_invoices' which might retrieve invoice data rather than payments, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_invoice' and 'get_invoices' that might handle related data, there's no indication of whether this tool is for payments specifically, when it should be preferred, or any prerequisites for use.

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