Get invoice payments

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, so the description adds useful context by revealing the underlying Transactions.getApplied wrapper and the optional extra call per transaction via include_transaction_details. This explains behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler. The core action and output fields are front-loaded, and the optional-detail behavior is explained concisely.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately lists the returned fields and the invoice summary. It is complete enough for a read-only tool, though it could mention behavior for invoices with no payments.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of include_transaction_details and mentions the returned transaction fields, but it does not materially add new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('payments applied to an invoice'), and enumerates the exact fields returned. It clearly separates this from sibling tools like get_client_transactions or get_transaction by anchoring to invoice-scoped payments.

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 intended use is clear: call this when you need the payments applied to a specific invoice and its paid/due summary. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scoping is strong enough that an agent can select it correctly.

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