Verify a transfer and activate access

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

Despite being named 'get', it discloses that the call may activate access — consistent with readOnlyHint=false — and defines the single authoritative success signal (fulfillmentStatus=fulfilled), explicitly rejecting proxies like CLI output or sender status. It adds latency expectations (business days), rate-limit behavior (pollAfterSeconds >= 60), and failure-state handling, all beyond what the annotations convey.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the remaining sentences are dense operational constraints rather than filler. It is longer than typical but nearly every clause carries a distinct rule (confirmation signal, poll interval, latency, pending/review handling), so little could be cut without losing guidance.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering return values, the description fills exactly the gaps that matter: side effects, authoritative success criteria, latency, polling limits, and terminal-state routing. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 one parameter (id) with 0% schema description coverage; the description implies it identifies the connected account's payment order but does not explain the 64-hex-character format, which only the regex pattern communicates. The mentions of fulfillmentStatus and pollAfterSeconds describe response fields, not the input, so they do not compensate for the parameter gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Check ... the connected account's payment order' — and an explicit scope limit ('only the connected account's'), plus the secondary effect of reconciling a bank receipt. An agent can distinguish this from create_payment_order or get_checkout 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?

It states the conditions that forbid action ('Never send a replacement payment while pending') and routes abnormal states elsewhere ('review_required or reversed needs support reconciliation, not another payment'). It also gives polling discipline via pollAfterSeconds >= 60. It stops short of naming the sibling tool to use instead, so it is strong context rather than full when/when-not/alternative routing.

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