list_tenant_payments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that 'Raw X-PAYMENT headers, authorization hashes, and internal metadata are never returned', which is useful behavioral info. However, it lacks details on pagination behavior, response structure, or side effects, leaving gaps.

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 very concise, consisting of three short sentences that front-load the purpose. Every sentence adds unique value: action, permission, and data exclusions. No unnecessary words.

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 description covers the core purpose and permission but lacks critical context like output format (no output schema exists) and pagination details (despite the 'after' parameter implying cursor-based pagination). Given 4 parameters and no output schema, it is moderately incomplete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters (after, limit, status, project_id) beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'redacted tenant x402 payment records for priced function web routes on a project', specifying the exact verb, resource, and scope. It also provides the HTTP endpoint, which helps differentiate from billing_history or other payment-related 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (for tenant payments on a project) and includes the required permission. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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