Payment Provider Options List

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: it requires the read_payments scope and targets API version 2025-03. It also discloses the response envelope, which annotations never cover; it stops short of noting rate limits or what an 'option' actually contains.

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, front-loaded lines with no filler; the purpose line comes first and the metadata lines are scannable. The metadata is formatted as fragmented labels rather than prose, which is efficient but slightly telegraphic.

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?

There is no output schema, so documenting the {count, page, per_page, has_more, items[]} envelope is real added value, and the auth scope is stated. What remains unexplained is the semantic content of an 'option' and how this differs from sibling payment listing tools.

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%, with page/per_page/fields/response_format all documented, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema states, so the 3 baseline 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?

Uses a specific verb ('List') plus a concrete resource ('options of the app's payment providers') and pins it with the exact endpoint GET /payment_providers/options. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similarly named siblings tiendanube_payment_options_list and tiendanube_payment_providers_list, so an agent must infer which one returns 'provider options'.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the near-duplicate payment_options_list / payment_providers_list siblings. The only implicit cue is 'of the app's payment providers', which requires the agent to already know the domain model.

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