Listar formas de pago

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, and the description adds that the result includes each method's id — useful but minimal. It says nothing about whether the list is workspace-scoped, whether it can be empty, or ordering, so behavioral context beyond the annotation is thin.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler: purpose, examples, key return field, and downstream usage all front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so partially by naming the id field and example values. It does not state whether the full set of methods is always returned or whether results may be filtered, a minor gap for a zero-arg lookup tool.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document; baseline 4 applies. The description instead spends its words on the return field (id) that matters for chaining, which is a reasonable use of space.

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 ('Lista las formas de pago configuradas') and enumerates concrete examples (transferencia, tarjeta, domiciliación), so the agent knows this is a configuration catalog rather than transaction data. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling cs_list_payments, which lists actual payments, leaving slight room for confusion.

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?

Explicitly names the downstream consumer: the returned id is 'necesario para cs_add_payment', which tells the agent exactly when to call this tool (before adding a payment). There is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of the other listing siblings, but the invocation context is clear.

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