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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read with no external side effects. The description adds context about retrying and credit timing, which is helpful, but it does not explain return format, error behavior, or rate limits. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded with the core action and timing context, with zero wasted 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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose and timing, but does not mention authentication requirements, error handling, or the meaning of 'Credits appear once after confirmed payment' in relation to the tool's behavior. For a simple read tool with annotations and output schema, it is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 0% for the single parameter, so the description should compensate. It does not explain the payment_id parameter explicitly, but with only one required UUID parameter, the name is self-explanatory and the description provides no additional semantic detail. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, but there is 1 parameter, so a 4 is still reasonable given the low schema coverage and trivial parameter.

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 clear verb+resource ('Read payment status') and specifies the timing context ('before retrying'), which is more specific than the bare tool name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from any specific sibling like get_account or get_batch.

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 implies usage timing 'before retrying' but does not state when not to use this tool or name alternatives. It gives implied context but no explicit exclusions or alternative tool names.

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