get_customer_payments

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the basic purpose and does not mention read-only nature, pagination, ordering, what constitutes 'payment history', or any side effects. For a read tool, the lack of detail is a notable gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and easy to parse, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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 lacks annotations and an output schema, so the description should explain return values or behavioral nuances to be complete. It does not describe what the payment history contains, how limit is applied, or any response structure, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (customer_id, limit) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 'Get payment history for a customer' clearly identifies the verb (get) and resource (payment history) with a customer scope. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like get_payment_intent or get_payment_link, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 phrase 'for a customer' implies this tool is used when you need a customer's payment records, especially given the customer_id parameter. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or differentiation from alternatives like list_payment_intents or get_payment.

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