PayPing: list transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them: newest-first ordering, currency (Toman), the presence of a total count, and the exact field set returned. It stops short of mentioning pagination behavior or limits, which is a modest gap.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the result-shape information front-loaded and the alternative deferred to the end. Every clause 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description needn't explain return values in depth, and its scope, ordering and alternative routing are adequate for correct invocation. Minor omissions (paging behavior, relation to the other list siblings) keep it from a 5.

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 kind, limit, offset, from_date and to_date with formats and ranges. The description only alludes to 'the same filter' without adding syntax or defaults, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('List payments'), immediately enumerates the returned fields (amount in Toman, payer, description, isPaid, payment code), and names sort order ('newest first') plus the total count. It also explicitly routes the agent to the sibling payping_get_payment for full detail, so it is distinguishable without opening a schema.

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 second sentence gives a clear alternative and the condition that selects it ('Use payping_get_payment with a code for full detail'). It does not, however, state when to prefer this over the other list siblings (invoices, withdrawals, customers), so guidance is strong but not complete.

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