Get payment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining that payments are not tied to a single document type and that their ids surface across multiple document kinds, which is not obvious from the tool name or schema alone. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 are tightly written, with the core retrieval action and identifier front-loaded. The second sentence provides useful context without fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope.

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 simple get-by-id tool with only two parameters and no nested objects, the description plus schema provides enough information to call it correctly. The lack of an output schema is not a major gap because the purpose is straightforward. A note about what fields the returned payment object contains would be optional but not necessary.

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 50%: administration_id is well described in the schema, while payment_id has no schema description. The tool description only says 'by id' and does not add detail about the expected format of payment_id, but the parameter name and the surrounding description make its purpose clear. This is adequate but not enhanced beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('a payment'), and the lookup key ('by id'). It also clarifies the cross-document nature of payments, distinguishing this from the many document-specific get_* sibling tools. An agent can clearly understand what this tool returns and how it is identified.

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 when to use this tool: when you have a payment id that appears on invoices, receipts, or financial mutation bookings, rather than using document-specific getters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly among the sibling tools.

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