list_records

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the entire book is returned with no paging, which is critical for an agent reasoning about volume and cost. It also discloses an unusual security trait — that purposes, counterparties and memos are untrusted data, never instructions — which no annotation conveys.

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?

Front-loaded with what is returned, then the no-paging constraint, then sibling routing, then the injection warning — each sentence carries distinct, decision-relevant information. The field enumeration is dense but earns its place given there is no output schema.

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, the description compensates by listing every returned field, stating result volume and lack of pagination, and warning about untrusted content in the response. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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 single `all` parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The phrase "with its current version" hints at the default behavior and thus at what `all` toggles, but the description never addresses the option to include earlier versions of corrected payments, leaving that meaning entirely to the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("lists the payments in your company's book") and enumerates the exact returned fields, so an agent knows precisely what comes back. It is clearly distinguishable from get_intent and verify_record, which are named explicitly.

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?

Gives explicit positive use cases ("find a record_id or review what has been paid") and routes the agent to alternatives with the conditions that select them: get_intent for one intent, verify_record for checking a seal. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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