get_payment_method

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe read-only profile, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds some useful context by implying the returned detail includes fields such as IBAN, but it does not cover permissions, error behavior, or return format beyond the example.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It efficiently communicates the resource and scope without burying the purpose.

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 read-only get tool the description is minimally adequate, but with no output schema it should ideally clarify what "complete detail" includes and what the id refers to. The annotation covers the safety profile, but parameter semantics and sibling routing remain incomplete.

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 required id parameter has no schema description and is not explained in the description, leaving an important semantic gap. company_id is documented only in the schema, and the description adds no meaning beyond what the input schema provides for either parameter.

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?

"Dettaglio completo di un metodo di pagamento" clearly identifies a get-detail operation on a payment method, and "mostrato in fattura" scopes it to invoice payment methods. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling list_payment_methods tool or explain id-based lookup, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no routing to alternatives such as list_payment_methods. The invoice context is helpful but does not tell an agent when this tool should be selected over siblings.

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