portal_payments

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get', implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose auth requirements, data scope when personId is omitted, response format, or whether balances are real-time.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, and every word earns its place. It conveys the operation and resource without 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?

For a simple one-optional-parameter read tool, the description plus schema is minimally usable. However, no output schema exists and the description doesn't state the behavior when personId is omitted or required access scopes, leaving some context gaps.

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% and describes personId as an optional filter. The tool description adds no parameter semantics, but the schema already covers it, so 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('payment history and outstanding balances'). It clearly separates portal_payments from sibling portal tools like portal_assignments or portal_timetable by naming the domain.

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 intended use is implied when a user needs payment history or balances, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. There are no sibling payment tools, so alternatives aren't named.

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