List payments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the filtering capability but does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, or any other operational details that would go beyond the structured fields.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and filtering capability.

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?

Simple list tool with no output schema, but the description plus annotations and fully documented parameters are sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's basic behavior. It lacks explicit mention of default pagination or return format, but those are inferable from the schema and typical list patterns.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'filterable by client or invoice' adds marginal emphasis on the filter parameters but does not provide additional semantic meaning 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 ('payment transactions') with an added filter capability ('filterable by client or invoice'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_invoices or list_wallet_transactions.

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 gives context that the tool lists payments and can be filtered by client or invoice, implying when it might be useful. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, which is a clear gap given the large sibling list.

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