payments_fetch_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as what happens if the config is not found, whether it returns API keys, or any side effects. Since annotations cover the key traits, a neutral score of 3 is appropriate—no contradiction, but no added value either.

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 is extremely concise (four words) with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the action and target. However, it might be so terse that it sacrifices clarity (e.g., what 'given' refers to), but for a simple fetch operation it's appropriately sized without waste.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. Annotations cover safety. The description is minimal but doesn't clarify what the provider config contains or the shape of the response, which could be useful since there is no output schema. Given the low complexity, this is adequate but not complete—an agent might not know what to expect from the returned config.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%—the single parameter 'locationId' has a description and default behavior. The description itself adds no extra meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct because the schema already fully documents the 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 'Fetch given provider config' states a clear action (fetch) and resource (provider config). It distinguishes from sibling payment tools like payments_list_coupons or payments_create_config by focusing on fetching a specific config. However, the term 'given' is vague and doesn't specify what identifies the config (e.g., provider or location), and it doesn't name any sibling, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many payment tools (payments_list_coupons, payments_get_coupon, payments_create_config, etc.), but the description doesn't explain the scenario for fetching a provider config specifically or mention any exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.

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