List bank payments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which is a strong safety profile. The description adds one behavioral nugget: 'created by this integration' (scope restriction) and 'limited read' which suggests it may not return all payments. However, 'limited read' is vague—does it limit by the integration filter or by pagination? The description doesn't add much beyond the annotation, but the scope qualifier is useful. No contradiction with annotations, so credit for that.

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?

One short sentence with no waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and scope. It earns its place. Could be slightly more specific but doesn't ramble. A 4 is fair—efficient and clear, though not perfect.

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?

The tool is a simple list operation with no required parameters and a fully described schema. Annotations cover safety. The description covers the scope. What's missing: no mention of return format or pagination behavior, but given no output schema, the description doesn't need to explain that. However, 'limited read' is ambiguous—does it mean it only returns payments created by the integration, or that it's a restricted capability? That ambiguity leaves a small gap. Overall, adequate for a simple read 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%, so the schema already explains all three parameters (page, query, pageSize). The description adds no additional parameter semantics—it doesn't clarify what 'query' filters on or how pagination works beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 given high coverage; the description doesn't compensate for any gaps, so 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb ('Lists') and resource ('bank payments') and adds a scope qualifier ('created by this integration') that distinguishes it from a generic fetch-all. It separates from sibling list tools like bokio_list_accounts by naming the specific entity. The 'limited read' phrase hints at restricted scope but could confuse—'limited' is vague. Still, the core purpose is unmistakable and the scope qualifier is meaningful.

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 implies usage: to list payments that this integration created, and implicitly not those created outside the integration. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs the sibling bokio_list_invoice_payments or bokio_get_bank_payment, though the entity name distinguishes it. There's no 'when not to use' guidance or alternatives named, but the scope qualifier gives some context. This is adequate but not explicit.

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