search_payments

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention result format, pagination, ordering, default limit, or how multiple filters are combined (e.g., AND logic). Users are left unaware of what the search returns or how it behaves with edge cases.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and to the point. While it lacks context, brevity is a plus and nothing is wasted.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain return values, default behaviors, and filter semantics. Instead, it offers a minimal statement. For a search tool with five optional parameters, this is insufficient for an agent to understand expected results, pagination, or error scenarios.

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 input schema covers all five parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description need not repeat them. However, the description only says 'with filters' and does not add meaning about filter interplay, inclusivity of date ranges, or validation rules. Thus it meets the baseline but adds no extra semantic value.

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?

The description uses a specific verb 'search' with a clear resource 'payments' and indicates the filter mechanism. It distinguishes itself from singular tools like get_payment and creation tools like create_payment. However, it does not specify the scope (e.g., all payments for a user) or what fields are searchable, which is slightly vague.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_payment for a single record or search_customers for customer lookup. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases. The description solely states what it does but not why one would choose it.

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