payout_status

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine value beyond them: completion is only reported after the provider confirms, demo completions are simulated with bankPaid=false, and no funds are ever sent. It stops short of describing latency, polling expectations, or error states.

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 core action and scoping constraint, followed by return-value caveats. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description reasonably covers the most load-bearing return semantics (completion only on provider confirmation, demo bankPaid=false). It leaves the overall response shape unspecified, but for a one-parameter read tool with full safety annotations, the agent has what it needs.

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% and the single payoutId parameter is fully documented in the schema (including the "never create a replacement to retry" warning). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Inspect an existing payout") and immediately separates itself from the write siblings with "Never sends funds," so an agent can distinguish it from execute_payout and prepare_payout without opening any schema.

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?

The description implies the tool is for checking status of an already-created payout (vs. creating/executing one), but it never explicitly names when to use this instead of payout_history or execute_payout. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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