List payments

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it returns raw rows with no aggregation, so the agent must sum and analyze itself — that shapes how the result is used.

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, no filler, and the identity of the tool is front-loaded before the use cases and the return-volume caveat. Every sentence carries distinct 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?

For a read-only list tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, usage context, and the shape of the return (raw, unaggregated). Pagination behavior beyond the limit param and the payments-vs-invoices distinction are the only omissions.

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%, and the schema already documents every filter including the DATE REFERENCE guidance for dateFrom, so baseline 3 applies. The description contributes nothing about parameter semantics or defaults beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Fetch payment records') and names concrete use cases (revenue questions, income tracking, payment history). It does not, however, draw a boundary against the nearby get_invoices or get_line_items siblings, which overlap on 'revenue questions', so an agent could still face ambiguity.

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 clear positive context for when to reach for this tool rather than a generic data-fetch. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. 'use get_invoices for billed amounts'), so routing against the closest sibling is left to inference.

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