ecommerce_listStorePaymentProvidersV1

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a valuable security guarantee—'Never exposes gateway credentials, secrets, or configuration'—and explains the output split into two categories. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but for a listing tool, the security note is a meaningful addition beyond the schema.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose and return structure, and the second delivers a security guarantee. It's front-loaded with the most important information and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description does well to explain the return structure (two categories) and the security guarantee. It does not mention pagination, response size, or error behavior, which could be helpful, but for a listing tool the essential information is present. It's complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters (store_id and include_currency_unsupported), so the schema already explains them fully. The tool description adds no extra meaning about either parameter, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states a specific verb (list) and resource (a store's payment providers), and further distinguishes between connected providers and installable gateways. This makes the tool's purpose distinct from sibling ecommerce tools like ecommerce_createAPaymentProviderConnectLinkV1 or ecommerce_listDiscountsV1, which have different functions.

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?

The description gives clear context on what the tool returns—connected providers and available gateways—which implies when it should be used (e.g., to review payment setup). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest bar for usage guidance.

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