gatekeeper_list_payments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the global scope and supported status values, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default result size, or ordering. That is acceptable for a safe read-only list tool, but not especially rich.

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 that front-loads the action and resource, then packs all relevant filter information without redundancy. Every clause earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a six-parameter filtered list with strong annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers scope, optionality, status vocabulary, date range, and pagination. It could be more explicit about date format and the from_path naming mismatch, and it does not state the default result set when no filters are provided, but these are minor for a read-only list tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It names status with its allowed values, project_slug, from/to dates, limit, and offset. The only weakness is the wording 'from/to dates' while the schema property is 'from_path', which introduces mild ambiguity about whether 'from' is a path or a date.

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 a specific action ('List') and resource ('payments across all Gatekeeper projects'), and lists concrete filter dimensions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gatekeeper_list_projects and gatekeeper_revenue_report, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 gives clear context: it is for reading payments across all Gatekeeper projects with optional filters, and the phrase 'across all Gatekeeper projects' signals that it is not scoped to one project. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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