tebra_get_payments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns payment details but does not mention any side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. The description is too minimal for such a parameter-rich 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no extraneous information. Every word adds value.

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 that this tool has 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain pagination, sorting, or any constraints (e.g., whether at least one filter is required). A more complete description would improve usability.

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?

All 8 parameters have full descriptions in the input schema, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds some value by summarizing filters as 'date range and patient filters', but this does not enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides. It omits mention of other filters like payerName, batchNumber, etc.

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 the verb 'Get' and clearly specifies the resource 'payments from Tebra'. It lists return fields (amounts, methods, payer info) and indicates optional filters. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like tebra_get_charges or tebra_get_transactions, which could cause confusion about when to use each.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is inappropriate. Siblings like tebra_get_transactions might overlap in functionality, but the description offers no comparative context.

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