get_payments

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature via '[tier: readonly-owner]', the payload limit, and the HTTP endpoint. It does not describe error behavior or the exact return format, but the key safety traits are covered.

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 phrases plus tags, with the core purpose front-loaded. No wasted words; each element ('full', 'up to 1000', 'POST /payment/get', 'readonly-owner') adds context.

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 (1 param, no output schema), and the description covers the main function, the limit, and access context. However, without an output schema or a description of the return structure, the agent may not know exactly what fields are included, though 'full' implies completeness. Sibling tools provide further context.

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 has a single param paymentIDs with no description (0% coverage). The description adds that the IDs are payment IDs and that there is a maximum of 1000, giving meaning beyond the raw schema. It doesn't detail valid ranges or duplicates, but compensates for the schema gap.

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 clearly states the function: retrieving full payment records for up to 1000 payment IDs. It identifies the resource (payments) and scope (by ID, limit). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling search_payments, so it lacks explicit 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 usage is implied: when you have payment IDs and want full records. It mentions a limit but does not specify when to prefer this over search_payments or other get tools. There are no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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