Get Payment Methods

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'List all configured payment methods' without disclosing whether authentication is required, the return format, pagination, or any rate limits. The term 'List' implies non-mutating, but the description adds little beyond the basic action.

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: 'List all configured payment methods.' Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters, but the description is too terse given that no output schema or annotations are provided. It does not explain what a payment method entry contains (e.g., id, brand, last4) or that it returns an array, leaving the agent without enough context to parse the response effectively.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to describe. The description's 'all configured' clarifies the scope (no filtering), which aligns with the empty parameter set. Per rubric, baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 'List' and a clear resource 'configured payment methods'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like billing_set_default_payment_method and billing_delete_payment_method, which are mutation operations, and billing_get_catalog, which deals with products/services.

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 implies usage when one needs to retrieve payment methods, but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. It is a simple read operation, so the context is clear, but no exclusions or comparisons to sibling billing tools are mentioned.

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