PayPing: list withdrawals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful bits beyond that: amounts are in Toman (a currency-unit detail absent from the schema) and a total count is returned alongside the page. It says nothing about pagination limits or ordering, so this is a modest rather than rich contribution.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the resource named first and the payload enumerated via a colon list; no filler, no restatement of the name or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile; the description nonetheless briefly characterizes the payload (which is helpful for a Toman-currency, status-bearing list). The only meaningful gap is the absence of routing guidance against the get_withdrawal / list_transactions siblings.

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% — limit (1-50, default 20) and offset (paging) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or defaults of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List') and resource ('settlements (withdrawals to your bank account)'), and disambiguates from the sibling list tools (transactions, invoices, customers) by naming the bank-account-settlement resource. It even enumerates the returned fields (date, amount, code, paid status), so an agent knows exactly what it gets.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as payping_get_withdrawal for a single withdrawal or payping_list_transactions for payment activity. The agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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