Get session status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key return contents: lifecycle status, transaction status, amounts as decimal strings, and list of payment operations. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state it has no side effects, which would have made it fully transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and key details, and every clause adds value. It is concise without being under-specified, listing the specific status types and use cases.

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 status-query tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what data is returned and when to use it. It also implicitly differentiates from sibling tools, making the tool's role in the workflow fully clear.

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 schema already provides a clear description for session_id ('Session id (acquiring or checkout)'), covering 100% of the parameters. The tool description does not add further parameter-level details, but no additional clarification is needed given the simple, self-explanatory 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Get the current status') and resource ('a payment session'), and specifies the scope (acquiring or checkout). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on status retrieval, not creation or modification, making its purpose 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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this to poll for payment results and to verify the outcome of complete_hold / void_session / expire_session,' giving direct guidance on when to call it relative to other operations. It also indicates coverage for both session types, which is helpful context.

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