brc_list_cash_payments

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behaviors. It only says 'lists', failing to mention pagination, filtering, ordering, or that it is a read-only operation. The input schema hints at these features, but the description adds no transparency.

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 sentence, which is short, but it is under-specified and does not adequately explain the tool. Conciseness is good, but at the expense of necessary information.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 7 parameters including pagination, the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values, pagination behavior, or how to use the tool effectively.

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 43%, with some parameters (filter, orderBy, companyName) having descriptions. The tool's description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, missing an opportunity to clarify their usage or default behaviors.

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 states the verb 'Lists' and the resource 'BRC cash payments', making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like brc_get_cash_payment or brc_list_cash_receipts, which have similar names.

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 such as brc_list_cash_receipts or other list tools. The description does not include when-not-to-use or contextual prerequisites.

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