list_payments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action (listing payments received) and does not reveal any side effects, filtering behavior, pagination, or safety characteristics beyond what is implicit in a 'list' operation.

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, concise sentence in French. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, and every word adds meaning without redundancy.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides insufficient context. It does not mention what the response contains, how parameters affect the results, or the default behavior (e.g., account_id default of 1), leaving the agent without essential operational details.

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 20% (only account_id has a description), yet the description adds no parameter information. It indirectly hints at the account parameter via 'compte bancaire' but does not explain limit, date_start, date_end, or reconciled_only, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 action ('Lister') and the resource ('transactions d'un compte bancaire') with a clarifying scope ('paiements reçus'). It is specific and understandable, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool get_bank_transactions, which also lists bank 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool does, without mentioning exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be preferable.

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