payment_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Query' suggests a read-only operation, but the description does not mention authentication requirements, idempotency, error behavior, potential rate limits, or whether it only works for transactions created through the same Payment API.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core action and domain with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the parenthetical is a useful clarifier rather than redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter, so the schema plus the short description may be enough for basic invocation. However, the lack of output schema, absence of annotations, and missing guidance about what status values are returned or how the transaction ID is obtained leaves notable gaps.

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 declares a single required string transaction_id, but the description does not explicitly mention the parameter or explain its format, origin, or relation to payment_create/payment_transfer. The phrase 'payment transaction' weakly implies what transaction_id refers to, but with 0% schema description coverage, this is minimal compensation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and a specific resource ('status of a payment transaction'), and the parenthetical 'official Payment API' adds domain context. It is clearly distinguishable from 'payment_create' and 'payment_transfer' by the status-query intent, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as after calling payment_create or payment_transfer, or how it relates to other payment-related operations. There are no exclusions or conditions stated.

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