payment_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('Retrieve') and includes a conditional action based on status, which adds some context. However, it lacks details on permissions required, error handling, rate limits, or what the return format looks like, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with sensitive payment data.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first and additional context provided in a second sentence. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and a usage note but misses critical details such as the return format, error conditions, or full behavioral context. For a payment-related tool with no structured metadata, this leaves too much ambiguity for reliable agent use.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain what 'pid' represents (e.g., payment ID, transaction ID) or provide any semantic context beyond the schema. This leaves the parameter meaning unclear, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('details of a payment'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'billing_info' or 'pay_offer', which might also relate to payment information.

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 provides implied usage guidance by mentioning that if the payment status is 'needs_review', the user should be informed to approve it at app.fewsats.com. This suggests a specific scenario for using the tool, but it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'billing_info' or 'create_x402_payment_header', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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