get_payment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' and 'Returns' imply a non-mutating read, and it usefully discloses that allocations to invoices are included, but it says nothing about behavior when the ID is not found, permission requirements, or whether results are cached/limited.

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 action and scope, then the return payload. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 no annotations, the description covers the essentials and compensates for the absent output schema by describing the return content (full details plus invoice allocations). Only minor gaps remain around failure/permission behavior.

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% — payment_id is already documented as 'The payment ID to retrieve'. The description adds only the phrase 'by ID', which restates the schema rather than adding format, source, or validation detail.

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 a customer payment (AR) by ID') and the '(AR)' qualifier implicitly separates it from get_bill_payment, which covers the AP side. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being routed to it.

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?

'By ID' implies the tool is for direct lookup once an identifier is known, which nudges the agent away from search_payments. However there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus the search variant, nor any prerequisite about where the ID comes from.

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