merit_list_payments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys a read-only listing operation via 'List' and getpayments, and it adds useful behavioral constraints: period length cap and the meaning of dateType and Direction values. It does not cover pagination, response shape, or permissions, but for a simple list endpoint the key behavior is disclosed.

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 compact sentences deliver the verb, resource, endpoint, date constraints, and key enum meanings with no filler. The most important invocation constraints are front-loaded before the response-direction note.

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 flat 5-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential call information: endpoint, required period format, maximum range, dateType semantics, and a key response field. It does not describe pagination or the full response shape, but an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret Direction values.

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 the baseline is 3; the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds small clarifications like 'ISO YYYY-MM-DD' and 'max 3 months apart,' but those are largely present in the schema. The Direction mapping is useful for interpreting responses, not for selecting input parameters, so it does not meaningfully raise this dimension.

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 and resource: 'List Merit Aktiva payments for a period.' It also gives the exact underlying endpoint, POST /api/v2/getpayments, which makes the operation unmistakable. Among the large sibling list, this is clearly distinct from list_payment_types, delete_payment, and payment-creation tools.

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 period-bound listing context is clear, and the required periodStart/periodEnd plus the 3-month constraint tell the agent how to frame a call. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions, such as 'for deleting payments use merit_delete_payment.' Usage is more implied than explicitly routed.

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