payments_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: result ordering (most recent first), returned fields, and the downstream effect that the sum of payments determines invoice amountPaid and balance. Pagination or size limits are not disclosed.

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 efficient sentences with the core scope front-loaded, followed by ordering and return/derived information. No filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-field and ordering details plus the invoice balance relationship. Annotations cover safety, and schema covers parameters, so the agent has what it needs to invoke it correctly.

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%, so both invoiceId and companyId are already documented. The description reinforces that invoiceId scopes the listing, but adds no further semantics for the companyId override. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries parameter meaning.

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 and resource: listing payments for a specific invoice. Scope is precise and clearly distinct from payments_create/delete, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the invoice-scoped listing, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related tools such as receipts_list or invoice payment views. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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