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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose useful behavioral traits: it returns canonical state, includes tx_ref only once confirmed on a real rail, and includes explorer_url. It stops short of describing error behavior or side effects, but for a read tool the key behaviors are covered.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then return details, then usage instruction. No filler or repetition; each sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it returns, what it proves, and when it must be called. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema only defines payment_id as a required string with no description (0% coverage). The description never mentions payment_id directly; it relies on 'one payment request' to imply the argument. This is adequate for a single obvious parameter but doesn't explicitly compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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?

Opens with a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'one payment request', then gives concrete return details (settling rail, tx_ref, explorer_url). Clearly differentiates from create/cancel/list siblings by framing itslef as the verification and proof tool, so an agent can select it without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly states when to call: to verify a payment actually completed and as proof for a recipient, and instructs 'Always call this before concluding a payment failed.' It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to route the agent correctly.

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