wave_list_bill_payments

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors, but it only states 'list payments'. It does not mention if the operation is read-only, if it supports pagination, ordering, or what happens for invalid bill IDs. The minimal description provides insufficient behavioral context.

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 concise sentence, effectively conveying the core purpose without extra words. However, it could benefit from more structure (e.g., bullet points) or examples without becoming verbose.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what is returned (e.g., list of payment objects). It does not. Additionally, it omits any mention of required permissions, rate limits, or other operational context. For a list operation, this is 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 coverage is 100%, with parameter descriptions in the schema ('Bill ID', 'Business ID'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. No further elaboration on parameter formats or constraints.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists payments for a specific bill, using precise verb 'list' and resource 'payments made for a specific bill'. It is distinct from siblings like wave_list_invoice_payments (invoice payments) and wave_list_bills (bills).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other list tools. It is implied that it requires a billId, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. For example, it does not contrast with wave_list_invoice_payments or advise against using for invoices.

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