account_payment_methods_get_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no indication of pagination behavior, default result size relative to the limit parameter, total counts, or auth requirements. The only extra information is the REST path, which is essentially a restatement.

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?

Two short lines with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The endpoint line adds little for an agent that already has the tool name, but it does no harm and is at most mildly redundant.

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?

This is a paginated list tool with four undocumented parameters and no output schema, so the description is the only place pagination and return-shape expectations could be set — and it sets none. An agent cannot tell whether the response is paged, how to detect the end of results, or what a 'filter' string should look like.

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 0% across four parameters (sort, limit, filter, offset), and the description mentions none of them. The names are conventional enough that an agent can guess, but sort syntax, filter grammar, and the meaning of limit=50/offset=0 defaults relative to the result set are undocumented in both places.

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 account payment methods', reinforced by the REST path GET /account/payment-methods. An agent knows this retrieves a collection. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling 'billing_payment_methods_get_list', so the scope boundary of 'account' vs 'billing' payment methods is left for the agent to guess.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion, and no mention of the obvious alternatives ('account_payment_methods_get_by_id' for a single method, 'billing_payment_methods_get_list' for the billing variant). The agent must infer the choice purely from tool names.

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