List payments

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explicitly calling out the pagination cursor and filter dimensions, which tell the agent that results can be page-limited and filtered. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint; it is consistent with a read-only listing operation.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence that states the verb and resource and lists the key filter dimensions without any filler. Every word contributes.

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 straightforward read-only list operation with no required parameters, the description adequately conveys what the tool does and hints at pagination via the cursor mention. However, since there is no output schema, it could benefit from a brief note about the response shape (e.g., a list of payment objects with a next_cursor).

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?

All five parameters already have complete descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond a high-level summary of filter categories. It correctly maps status, date range, and cursor to the schema, but does not add new semantics about formats or defaults.

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 the specific verb 'List' and resource 'payments', immediately identifying the operation. It adds the key attributes (status, date range, pagination cursor), which distinguishes it from payment mutation tools like create_payment/capture_payment and from list_refunds/list_receipts.

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 makes the intended use case clear: retrieving a paginated, filterable set of payments. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource name and sibling set make the boundary obvious for an agent.

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