postgrid_list_cheques

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the read-only nature implicitly through 'List' and mentions search and pagination, but it does not clarify what search matches against, how pagination behaves beyond schema defaults, or what the response contains.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the operation, the resource, and the two key optional capabilities efficiently.

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 is a simple list operation with optional parameters and no required fields, so the basic description is mostly sufficient for invocation. However, without annotations or an output schema, the description omits specifics about search behavior and response shape, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether this tool fully satisfies a user request.

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 100%, so the schema already documents skip, limit, and search. The description adds only the generic note that search and pagination are optional, which adds minimal value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states a specific action ('List') and resource ('checks'), and the optional search and pagination details help distinguish it from simple retrieval or other resource lists. However, it uses the American spelling 'checks' instead of the tool name's 'cheques', and it does not explicitly contrast with 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 given about when to choose this tool over siblings like postgrid_get_cheque, postgrid_list_letters, or other list tools. The description only implies the obvious use case of listing checks; it provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

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