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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by clarifying that only parent prepayments are returned and that child prepayments are inaccessible through the public API.

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 uses two short, purposeful sentences. The main action and resource are front-loaded, and the child-prepayment caveat is a valuable secondary note with no wasted wording.

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 simple get-by-id operation with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential usage and key limitation. It does not detail the exact return object shape, and there is no output schema to clarify what 'information' contains, but this is a minor gap.

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?

All three parameters are already documented in the schema with 100% coverage, including a detailed explanation of connectionRef. The description does not add additional parameter-specific guidance beyond schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Returns information'), the resource ('a single parent Prepayment'), and the access method ('by id'). It also explicitly differentiates from child prepayments, making it easy to distinguish from brc_list_prepayments and the other get_* siblings.

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 'by id' specification conveys exactly when this tool should be used, and the note that child prepayments are not exposed sets a clear exclusion boundary. It does not explicitly name an alternative like brc_list_prepayments, but the intended context is unmistakable for a single-entity getter.

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