myob_supplier_payment_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'List supplier payments' and offers no details about pagination, filtering behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any other operational characteristics. This is starkly insufficient for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 extremely short and technically concise, but it crosses into under-specification. It lacks the substance needed to be useful, making the sentence not earn its place. A description this minimal is closer to a placeholder than an efficient summary.

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 the tool has three optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description should provide at least some context on how to use the parameters and what the tool returns. It does neither. The description is incomplete for a list operation that supports filtering and limiting, and it doesn't clarify how this relates to other payment or bill listing tools.

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 description coverage is 0% — the description does not mention or explain any of the three parameters (top, filter, business_id). Since the schema itself lacks descriptive text for these parameters, the description should compensate but completely fails to do so. The parameter names are mildly self-explanatory, but the description adds no 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 clear verb+resource combination: 'List supplier payments.' It clearly indicates the tool lists supplier payments, which distinguishes it from related tools like myob_customer_payment_list at a basic level. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as myob_bill_list or myob_spend_money_list, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any preferred context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Users are left to infer that it is the go-to for listing supplier payments, but there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.

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