list_payments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'List' and mentions output contents ('summary stats and item prices'), but it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or return format. The description adds some value beyond the schema by hinting at the response, but leaves gaps around pagination and detailed behavior.

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 concise sentence of 11 words. It front-loads the primary action ('List payment items') and follows with scope and output highlights. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose but lacks detail on return shape, pagination, or what 'summary stats' specifically includes. It is adequate for a basic understanding but leaves gaps for an agent to know exactly what to expect.

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 schema defines school_id only as a number with no description. The description's phrase 'for a school' clarifies that this parameter identifies the school, which is useful. However, the description does not elaborate on how school_id is used or any constraints, so it partially compensates for the 0% schema explanation but does not fully define the parameter's semantics.

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 action ('List'), resource ('payment items'), and scope ('for a school'). It also mentions 'summary stats and item prices', providing specific output characteristics that distinguish it from sibling list tools such as list_schools or list_notices. The verb+resource+scope pattern is explicit 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 indicates the tool is for listing payments for a school, which gives context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Since no sibling tool handles payments, the intended usage is implied but not clearly stated.

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