List payments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, making the read-only nature clear. Description adds that payments have specific states and date-range filtering. However, it doesn't disclose pagination, maximum date range, or default ordering, which would be useful 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?

A single sentence of about 15 words. Front-loaded with the main action 'List payments'. Efficient and to the point, though slightly more detail on state could be integrated without bloating.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should cover return value details. It mentions states of payments but not whether results are paginated, their ordering, or total count. For a list tool with three parameters, it's minimally adequate but lacks some context.

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 coverage is 100% with decent parameter descriptions. The description does not add new information beyond what the schema provides for startDate, endDate, and includeAgents. It mentions 'date range' and 'state' but state is not a parameter, so no extra parameter semantics.

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?

Description clearly states 'List payments' with verb and resource, and adds scope 'in a date range with state' listing possible payment states. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_payment (single) and create_payment. However, it doesn't clarify if 'with state' means the returned payments will have those states or if it's a filter, causing slight ambiguity.

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 on when to use this tool over alternatives like get_payment or list_transactions. No mention of when not to use or typical use cases. The description lacks any usage context.

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