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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description's remaining job is context. It adds useful detail about which fields come back and the REST endpoint, but says nothing about behavior on a missing/invalid ID, permissions, or error responses.

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 payload summary followed by the endpoint. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter read tool with a readOnly annotation and no output schema, this covers purpose, returned fields, and endpoint. Only the behavior on a nonexistent payment is missing, which 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?

Schema coverage is 0% — payment_id has no description at all. The endpoint template /v1/payment/{id} implies the parameter is the payment identifier, which partially compensates, but format (numeric vs. opaque string) and sourcing of the ID remain undocumented.

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 and resource ('Get one payment') and enumerates the fields returned (method, status, fees, refunds), plus the underlying endpoint. The singular 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from moego_list_payments, but it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'one payment' plus the /v1/payment/{id} path tells the agent it needs a known payment ID, so listing vs. fetching is inferable. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over moego_list_payments or what to do when the ID is unknown.

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