payments_get_order_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral details beyond these hints—it does not clarify response format, error handling, or authentication requirements. Since the annotations carry the informational burden, the description meets the baseline but adds no extra transparency.

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—a single fragment—which is appropriate for a simple get-by-id operation. However, it essentially restates the tool name without adding explanatory value. It is not verbose, but it is under-specified in a way that does not earn a higher score.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, full parameter coverage in the schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. There is no output schema, so return value details are not required. However, the absence of any usage context or alternative routing makes it slightly incomplete for an agent that needs to decide among similar tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (orderId, altId, locationId) are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage. No additional insight is needed or offered.

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 'Get Order by ID' clearly states the verb (get) and resource (order), with the scope being by ID. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it does not differentiate it from other get-by-id tools in the same namespace (e.g., payments_get_subscription_by_id, payments_get_transaction_by_id). The name already conveys this, so it works but lacks sibling distinction.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like payments_list_orders or other get-by-id tools. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or fallbacks. The description offers no usage context, leaving the agent to infer 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.