square_get_payment

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions routing details ('routes through /api/tools/invoke...'), which are infrastructure concerns rather than behavioral traits like idempotency, rate limits, or data scope. No information about side effects or required permissions.

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 short but contains verbose routing information that is not actionable for the agent. The first sentence is a tautology; the second adds utility context but is still vague. Every sentence does not earn its place, as the routing detail could be omitted or moved.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description is extremely sparse. It fails to explain what the tool does in practical terms, what input is required (e.g., payment ID), or what the return value contains. The sibling list is extensive but not leveraged for differentiation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It states that the 'arguments' parameter is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal context that the arguments correspond to the underlying Square API. However, it does not specify which fields are expected (e.g., payment_id), leaving the agent with no practical guidance.

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 merely restates the operation name 'get_payment' and mentions it's a Square connector operation. It does not clearly specify what the tool retrieves (e.g., a specific payment by ID) or how it differs from siblings like square_list_payments or square_get_order. The verb 'get' implies retrieval, but the resource is ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as square_list_payments for listing multiple payments. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use the tool.

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