Listar pagos de una factura

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the description is only obligated to add context beyond it — and it adds essentially none. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, result size, or what happens when the invoice has no payments, all of which matter for a list tool.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing behavioral detail noted elsewhere.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, so the bar is modest, and the annotations already cover the read-only nature. However, with zero schema coverage on invoiceId and no indication of return shape or result ordering, an agent is left guessing about output behavior.

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 0%, so invoiceId carries no documented meaning in the schema; the description partially compensates by making clear the parameter identifies the invoice whose payments are returned. It still gives no format, type, or validation detail, so the compensation is incomplete.

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?

Names a specific verb (lista) and resource (los pagos o cobros registrados en una factura), so an agent can tell it retrieves payments as opposed to creating or removing them. It does not explicitly name cs_add_payment or cs_delete_payment as the mutating siblings, so differentiation is inferred from the verb rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no stated prerequisites beyond the implicit need for an invoice. An agent must infer that this is the read counterpart to cs_add_payment from the name alone.

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