brc_list_payments

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination, required company context, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but adds no value beyond the name.

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?

While very concise (4 words), the extreme brevity sacrifices necessary information. It is not appropriately sized for a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations.

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 7 parameters, low schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain return format, pagination behavior, or the meaning of 'BRC payments'.

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?

The description adds no meaning to the 7 parameters. Schema coverage is only 43% (3 of 7 params described), but the description compensates nothing. An agent gets no additional help interpreting 'top', 'skip', 'pageSize', etc.

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 'Lists BRC payments' is a clear verb+resource, but it lacks specificity about what constitutes a BRC payment versus other payment types (e.g., cash payments, prepayments) and does not differentiate from sibling 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like brc_list_cash_payments or brc_list_customers exist, but no context about selection criteria or prerequisites is given.

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