Check a payment

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value by enumerating the possible states (held, approved, rejected, expired) and noting payout outcome. With no output schema, this return-state context is the only place an agent learns what comes back.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the lookup action followed by the two things returned (status and payout), with no wasted wording.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations declaring it safe and non-open-world, the description covers what it does and what the result conveys. The only missing piece is how to interpret edge cases (e.g. nonexistent ids), which is minor here.

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 coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is fully documented with format example (pr_...), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes that the lookup targets a request the caller made earlier, adding no format or lookup semantics 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('look up a payment request') and scopes it to requests the caller made earlier, which distinguishes it from the create-side sibling request_payment without naming it. It stops short of an explicit contrast, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 by 'a payment request you made earlier' — call this after requesting a payment to see its state. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. request_payment or get_my_limits) to route between.

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