holded_list_payments

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool lists payments and supports optional filtering by date range, but it does not mention pagination, return format, ordering, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Some useful behavior is disclosed, but key traits are 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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the optional filter is stated as a secondary clause. Every word earns its place.

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 list tool with two optional, well-documented parameters, the description is adequate for invoking correctly. However, there is no output schema and the description does not describe what fields a payment record contains, whether results are paginated, or any response envelope details. It is sufficient but not complete.

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 the schema already documents startDate and endDate with formats. The description's mention of 'rango de fechas' adds a conceptual layer but does not provide additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already states. This matches the baseline for fully covered parameters.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Lista los pagos registrados en Holded' (lists payments registered in Holded). It also mentions the optional date-range filter, which adds scope. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling list tools, but the resource 'pagos' is distinct enough for basic selection.

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 when to use the tool: to list payments and optionally filter by date range. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like list_treasuries or list_documents. The usage context is implied rather than directly stated.

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