list_payment_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optional filters' and pagination, but doesn't describe what the tool returns (though output schema exists), whether it's read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when filters return no results. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context.

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 description is appropriately concise with a clear purpose statement followed by a structured parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more informative. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose first.

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?

Given 4 parameters with 0% schema description coverage but an output schema exists, the description provides basic parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context. For a list/filter tool with pagination, it should ideally mention typical response structure, authentication needs, or error handling. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but other gaps remain.

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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that lists all 4 parameters with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage). It clarifies that currency filters to 'USDC/USDT', status filters by 'order status', and page/page_size control pagination. However, it doesn't explain valid status values or parameter constraints beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List payment orders with optional filters.' This specifies the verb ('list') and resource ('payment orders'), and mentions filtering capability. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_payment_order' (singular vs. plural list).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_payment_order' for retrieving a single order or 'create_payment_order' for creating new orders. There's no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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