List transactions for a payment

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

The description's only behavioral statement, 'Read-only,' merely restates the readOnlyHint annotation and adds no new context. The openWorldHint=true annotation is never addressed, and nothing is said about pagination, result limits, or what happens with the default date window.

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?

Two short sentences with the verb and scope front-loaded and no wasted clauses. The read-only note is redundant but costs only a few words.

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?

With no output schema, the description at least conveys what the results mean (transactions tied to a payment, used to confirm payment status). It still omits whether multiple transactions can be returned, ordering, and pagination behavior, leaving gaps for a list tool.

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 every parameter (paymentId, fromDate, toDate defaults) is already documented in the schema. The description adds only the loose notion of a 'payment request' and no format or filtering detail beyond the schema.

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 (List) and resource (transactions recorded against a payment request), and frames the intent ('to check whether it was paid'). It clearly differs from mutation siblings like ozow_create_payment or ozow_cancel_payment, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with ozow_verify_credentials or ozow_environment.

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 phrase 'to check whether it was paid' implies the when: after a payment request exists, to confirm settlement. However, there is no explicit guidance on alternatives (e.g., when to use this versus ozow_verify_credentials) or on prerequisites beyond the indirect mention of a payment request.

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