List payouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the required OAuth scope 'view_payouts', the underlying native GET endpoint, and the absence of an approval workflow. That is meaningful auth/operational detail beyond the annotations.

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 short fragments with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first two words. The endpoint/scope clauses are dense but each carries distinct information, though they read as clipped notes rather than polished prose.

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 zero-required-param list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth scope, and read-only status. The one gap is pagination behavior, which the schema hints at via page_key/next_page_key but the description never mentions.

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 all five parameters (after, before, account, page_key, include_upcoming) are already documented in the schema, including formats and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List payouts') and grounds it in the concrete native endpoint 'GET /payouts', so the agent knows this is the collection-level read. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_payout or get_upcoming_payout, but the plural 'list' plus the GET path makes the distinction inferable.

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 via 'scope: view_payouts' and 'no local effect approval required', which tells the agent this is a safe, pre-approved read path. However, it never states when to choose this over get_payout/get_upcoming_payout or whether filters should be applied. Guidance is present but implicit.

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