Payment Providers List

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the required OAuth scope (read_payments) and the pinned API version (2025-03), both of which affect whether a call will succeed.

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. No filler; each line conveys a distinct operational fact.

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 inline response shape ({count, page, per_page, has_more, next_page?, items[]}) usefully tells the agent what comes back and that pagination exists. Auth scope and API version are covered. Minor gaps remain: whether inactive/uninstalled providers appear and whether any filtering is supported.

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% and all four parameters (page, per_page, fields, response_format) are documented in the schema with defaults, bounds, and examples. The description adds nothing about parameters, so baseline 3 applies — the schema does all the work.

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 payment providers') plus a scoping qualifier ('registered by the app') that narrows the result set. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby tiendanube_payment_providers_get or tiendanube_payment_options_list / tiendanube_payment_provider_options_list siblings, which an agent could easily confuse.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'list' and the 'registered by the app' qualifier; there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over tiendanube_payment_providers_get or the payment options tools in the same family. The agent can infer it is the enumeration counterpart to the get tool, but must do the work itself.

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