List document payments

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

Despite annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, the description adds meaningful context: it explains the side-effect of recording a payment (updates paid_amount/paid_at), the compact default field set, the return structure, and that monetary values are integers in cents. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, giving the agent a realistic model of what the tool does and what the response looks like.

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 front-loaded with the primary action and structured in clear paragraphs. However, it repeats 'Amounts are integers in cents (150 = 1.50 EUR)' twice, which is redundant and slightly hurts conciseness. Overall it's well-organized and succinct enough for a 7-parameter tool.

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 list tool with 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the exact return structure ({ total, count, page, pages, has_more, next_page, items[] }), explains pagination, field selection, and provides domain context about payments and invoices. The absence of an output schema is compensated by a concrete return shape, making the tool's behavior predictable.

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 has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for every parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little that isn't already in the schema: it restates the fields option and mentions 'next_page' for pagination, both of which appear in the schema descriptions. The 'cents' note applies to returned data, not input params. Thus the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding 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 opens with 'List document payments from easybill with optional filters and pagination' — a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies the domain concept ('Payments booked against documents. Recording a payment is what marks an invoice as paid...') and differentiates from the sibling tool easybill_list_documents by pointing to the alternative for open invoices. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly directs users: 'To find open invoices instead, use easybill_list_documents with type='INVOICE' and paid_at='null'.' This is a clear when-to-use vs. alternative statement. It also explains pagination behavior ('Use 'next_page' to continue paging') and field-selection options, making the usage context concrete.

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