list_payments

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, how it handles invalid or missing school_ids, whether pagination is involved, or any side effects. It only describes the output content (upcoming/paid counts, total amount, payment posts). For a list tool, read-only behavior is implied but not explicit, and error handling is entirely undisclosed.

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 compact: one sentence stating purpose, one sentence detailing output, and a minimal args line. It is front-loaded with the core action and provides useful output detail without unnecessary fluff. The structure is logical, though the args section could be more informative without hurting conciseness.

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 an output schema (though not shown), the description needn't enumerate every field, but it does give a high-level summary of what the tool returns (counts, total amount, payment posts with items/prices). However, it omits important operational context such as possible error conditions (e.g., invalid school ID), ordering of results, or any filtering options. For a simple one-parameter list, this is minimally acceptable but leaves gaps in handling edge cases.

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 only parameter, school_id, has no schema description (coverage 0%). The description's 'Args' section says 'school_id: School ID', which is purely tautological and adds no semantic value beyond what the property name and integer type already convey. It neither explains the format, constraints, or usage, nor clarifies that it is an identifier for an existing school. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 states a specific verb 'List', a clear resource 'payment items', and narrows scope to 'a school', adding 'summary stats and item prices' as the output focus. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_schools or list_links, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites are mentioned, and there is no exclusion or condition to pick another tool. The phrase 'for a school' implies the need for a school_id but doesn't explain when this is the right choice among many list_* siblings. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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