Get Payout

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real value on top: it discloses that status is fetched live by querying BlindPay when possible, implying latency and possible staleness, and that the response also includes the fee record. That is genuine behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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 core action, plus a compact Args block. The Args section duplicates the schema and is mildly redundant, but nothing is bloated or 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully pre-announces what comes back — live status plus a fee record — so an agent knows the shape of the result. For a single-parameter read tool this is close to complete; only the empty/not-found case is unaddressed.

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?

There is exactly one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents payout_id fully. The Args block merely restates 'the withdrawal id' with no added format, source, or lookup guidance, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Get details of a single withdrawal') and scopes it to one record via 'payout_id', which clearly separates it from ashar_list_payouts and ashar_execute_payout. It stops short of naming siblings explicitly, so it lands just below the top mark.

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 implied: call this when you already have a payout_id and need that single record. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it or which sibling to prefer (e.g. list_payouts for browsing, execute_payout for creating), leaving routing to inference.

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