list_payment_intents

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits, but it only says 'List'. It does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, ordering, or whether it returns only successful intents. The agent is left to infer the full behavior from the schema alone.

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 zero wasted words. It communicates the essential purpose efficiently, matching the calibration example for 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 the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description is minimally viable but has gaps: it lacks usage guidance, pagination details, and any differentiation from similar list tools. The schema helps, but the description alone does not fully equip 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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('limit' and 'customer') clearly described in the input schema. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 'List payment intents' uses a specific verb (list) and explicit resource (payment intents), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_payment_intent (singular fetch) and create_payment_intent. It is unambiguous and directly states the operation.

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 that it is the standard way to fetch multiple intents, nor does it distinguish from list_payment_links or get_customer_payments. The description is purely a statement of function without context.

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