list_payments

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses the critical limitation of active fiscal year filtering. However, it does not mention pagination behavior (page/limit), default sorting, or whether fields are returned in any particular order. The field filtering optimization is noted, but more behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, auth) is missing.

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 two sentences plus a note, all front-loaded with key details. No redundant information. Slightly longer due to the note, but that note is essential. Efficient and clear.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and critical limitation (fiscal year filtering). However, it omits pagination behavior, default sort order, and a general idea of the response structure. Schema covers default fields, so that is acceptable, but the lack of pagination guidance reduces completeness.

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 baseline 3. The description adds limited value beyond schema: only mentions optional date range and field filtering, without elaborating on the Unix timestamp format or pagination semantics. The field filtering benefit (reduces response size) is a useful addition but not substantial.

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 it lists all payments with optional filters, and distinguishes from get_payment (single payment) and get_document_payments (payments per document) by explicitly mentioning the cross-year audit alternative. The scope (active fiscal year) is specified.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use for current fiscal year payments, and for cross-year audits, use get_document_payments. This helps the agent decide when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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