포트원 결제 내역 검색

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the search applies AND logic to all conditions, and includes important notes about V1 transaction numbers and timezone handling. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, potential side effects, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond what schema shows.

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 concise: one sentence for the main purpose plus a note. It is front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value, and no unnecessary text exists.

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?

Given the complexity of 15 parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core search logic and important notes. However, it lacks details on pagination defaults, error handling, and edge cases, making it minimally adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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% with parameter descriptions already present. The description adds no additional detail per parameter; the note about imp_uid is loosely related to the 'id' field but not explicitly linked. 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?

Description clearly states it searches payment records matching given conditions. The verb 'search' and resource 'payment records' are specific. Although no explicit sibling differentiation, the sibling tools are mostly about channels and stores, so purpose is distinct enough.

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 note about transaction number format and timezone requirement provides useful guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, and there is no mention of prerequisite conditions or order of operations. The hint about AND logic for filters is implicit.

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