Commerce Payment Gateway List

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers almost nothing: no indication that this is a read-only operation, no auth/permission notes, and no mention of pagination behavior despite page_limit/page_offset defaults. 'List' weakly implies a non-mutating read, which is the only behavioral signal present.

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 sentence is short and front-loaded, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy. There is no wasted text because there is barely any text at all.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a paginated list tool with two undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description should at least cover pagination and the read-only nature. It leaves both gaps open.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and instead says nothing about page_limit or page_offset. No default values, units, or iteration guidance are conveyed, leaving pagination semantics entirely undocumented.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('payment gateways'), so it is more than a pure tautology. However, it essentially restates the tool name and title without any scope qualifier, filter behavior, or differentiation from the sibling commerce_payment_gateway_get, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer commerce_payment_gateway_get, and no stated prerequisites or context. The agent must guess the intended role of this tool from the name alone.

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