list_payment_methods

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only listing operation through the verb 'Lister', but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or safe. It also does not mention any configuration nuances or potential side effects, though for a simple list tool this is a minor gap.

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 a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the action, and includes clarifying examples. Every word adds value, and it avoids any redundant or vague phrasing.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It clearly states that the tool returns configured payment methods and their IDs, with examples of what counts as a payment method, which is sufficient for the agent to understand the tool's function and expected result.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none, and the schema covers 100% of the parameter surface.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Lister les modes de paiement configurés' (list configured payment methods). It includes examples (Virement, Chèque, CB) and specifies the output includes IDs. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_payments, which lists actual payment transactions.

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 implies the tool is used to retrieve available payment methods and their IDs, likely for reference when creating payments. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_payments or list_payment_terms, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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