billingo_get_document_paymentsFetch the payments recorded against a document using its unique ID to verify or reconcile payment history.
Returns the payments recorded against a document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Document id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the resource scope ('payments recorded against a document') and no further behavioral context such as response shape, pagination, or edge cases, so it contributes little beyond the annotations.
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, focused sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to scan.
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 simple, single-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is mostly sufficient: the agent knows the input (document id), the operation (returns payments), and that it is safe/idempotent. Some detail about the returned payment entries could be useful, but it is not necessary for correct invocation.
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 single parameter already has a clear description ('Document id.'). The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a clearly identified resource ('payments recorded against a document'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like billingo_get_document and billingo_get_document_reminders, so an agent can tell what this tool does without inspecting schemas.
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 implies that this tool should be used when payment information for a document is needed, but it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling alternative might be more appropriate. The intended use is inferable, not directly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.