get_payments

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: auth is injected server-side, calls are throttled under LearnWorlds' 30-per-10s cap and retried on 429/5xx, and non-2xx responses surface as tool errors with mapped HTTP status meanings. This is rich, actionable 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 organized into clear labeled sections (Behavior, Parameters, Returns, Use when) and every sentence carries operational value. The read-only and endpoint info are front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 parameterless-required read-only list tool with no output schema, the description fully covers return format, error behavior, pagination, filtering semantics, auth handling, rate limiting, and usage boundaries. The agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds valuable semantic context: multiple query params combine with AND logic, pagination is walked via page and sized via items_per_page, and default page size is 50. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 and resource: 'Get payments' returns a paginated list sorted by recency. It distinguishes itself from related payment tools by naming get_payment and get_invoice_link_per_payment as separate tools, and by emphasizing the list/pagination behavior.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'safe to call speculatively for lookups and reporting,' and when not to: 'Not for changing anything — use the matching 🟡 write tool.' This gives the agent clear decision rules, especially against many sibling write tools.

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