elba_payment_news

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses a write side effect ("Обновляет статусы в журнале") and a stateful cursor semantics (first call only advances the marker, history is not returned). What is missing is the read-vs-write safety framing, permission requirements, and behavior when no new payments exist.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The high-value surprise (first call yields no history) is front-loaded ahead of the field listing, which is exactly the right ordering for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the stateful behavior and side effect that an agent could not infer otherwise. It stops short of covering the empty-result case or any authorization preconditions, which are the only remaining gaps.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the description correctly spends no words on arguments, instead describing the returned fields and the marker/state model. Baseline for a 0-param tool is 4, and nothing here detracts from it.

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?

"Оплаты по счетам с прошлой проверки" names the resource (invoice payments) and the scope (since last check), and the listed fields (invoice, status, amount, received) make the payload concrete. It reads distinctly from siblings like elba_unpaid or elba_get_bill because of the incremental "news feed" framing, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 "since last check" phrasing implies polling usage, and the note that the first call only sets a marker is a genuine operational caveat an agent must know. However there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over elba_unpaid or elba_get_bill, and no when-not guidance.

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