Payment Options List

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the required OAuth scope, the pinned API version (2025-03), and the exact pagination envelope returned, which lets an agent plan the call and parse the result without guessing.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the purpose, then endpoint, scope, version, and response shape. Nothing is repeated from the annotations and every line is actionable.

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 no output schema, the description usefully discloses the return envelope ({count, page, per_page, has_more, items[]}) and the auth scope. The only gap for an agent deciding between payment-related list tools is the missing differentiation from siblings.

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 page, per_page, fields, and response_format are all documented in the schema. The description mentions none of them and adds no extra semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List the payment options available in the store'), which is clear on its own. However, the sibling set contains near-neighbors like tiendanube_payment_providers_list and tiendanube_payment_provider_options_list, and the description does nothing to distinguish this tool from them.

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?

Prerequisites are provided (required scope read_payment_options), which implies when the call will succeed, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over payment_providers_list or provider_options_list, nor any exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the name and scope.

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