get_document_payments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does declare 'Read-only' and, more valuably, discloses a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait — the return shape is unstable, yielding `{documentId, paymentsDetail}` only when the v2 response includes that field, otherwise the whole document. It stops short of covering failure modes (invalid docType, missing document, pagination) or auth requirements.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the return-shape caveat and the sibling comparison. The 'via the Holded API v2 GET endpoint' clause is mildly redundant but signals endpoint version, which contextualizes the field-name warning.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates by explaining the possible return shapes and the read-only nature. Remaining gaps are error behavior and what happens across the 11 document types, but for a two-param read tool it is largely complete.

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% and the docType enum is fully enumerated in the schema, so the description adds nothing about parameter meaning beyond what the input schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('payments registered against a specific document'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling by naming list_payments and its fiscal-year restriction. An agent can tell exactly what this returns 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?

Names the alternative (list_payments), states the differentiating condition (list_payments is scoped to the ACTIVE fiscal year; this spans ANY year), and gives a concrete use case ('cross-year payment audits'). That is the routing decision an agent needs.

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