list_job_payments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the tool is readonly (tier: readonly-owner) and maps to a GET endpoint, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 concise: two brief sentences plus a tier tag. Every word provides value, with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple list tool with two fully documented parameters, the description provides important context about financial sensitivity and tier restrictions. It lacks details on return value format or pagination behavior, but the cursor parameter is well-documented in the schema.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds only 'optionally filtered', which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists payments against a job, using the verb 'list'. It provides additional context (financially sensitive, admin tier). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_job_payment' or other list tools.

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 implies usage is restricted to admin users due to financial sensitivity, giving some guidance on when to use. But it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives (e.g., get_job_payment for a single payment).

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