bokio_list_invoice_payments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are paged and clarifies the settlement boundary, but it does not describe pagination defaults, ordering, or any other behavioral detail beyond what the schema and annotations provide.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the sibling exclusion. Every sentence carries useful information and nothing is redundant.

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 straightforward read-only list tool with a full output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and annotations, the description covers the essential scope and the key sibling boundary. Minor pagination details are left to the schema, which is reasonable.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond indicating that the tool operates on one invoice, which is already implied by the required invoiceId in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it lists payments registered on a single invoice. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from bokio_list_invoice_settlements by assigning fees and currency differences to that sibling, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

It clearly scopes use to payments on one invoice and explicitly excludes settlement-related data by pointing to bokio_list_invoice_settlements. It does not cover every possible alternative among the many sibling list tools, but the primary boundary is stated.

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