payments_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It appropriately describes the ordering behavior (most recent first), the returned fields, and the relationship between payments sum and invoice amountPaid/balance. It frames this as a read operation implicitly. Could add pagination or error behavior but covers the core behavioral contract.

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 sentences, zero waste. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and ordering behavior, followed by return fields and the business-rule relationship to balance. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple filtered-list tool with 2 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what's returned, ordering, and the financial relationship to amountPaid/balance. Lacks only pagination details, but this is a minor gap for a list tool.

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%, both parameters (companyId and invoiceId) are described in the schema. The description adds the invoiceId as the required scoping parameter but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 clearly states it lists all payments for a specific invoice, ordered by payment date descending. It specifies the returned fields (amount, date, method, reference number, notes) and distinguishes it from payments_create/payments_delete siblings. The verb+resource+scope is specific and unambiguous.

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 accurately identifies the tool as a read operation scoped to a single invoice. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes clear this is the payment-list viewer distinct from payment mutation tools. Sibling differentiation is implicit via the read-only framing.

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