get_payment_received

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval operation via 'Get', with no hint of side effects or destructive behavior. It does not mention error cases, authentication, or response shape, but for a simple getter that is a moderate rather than severe gap.

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 filler or redundant information. It communicates the operation, the resource, and the lookup key efficiently.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter schema and no nested objects, the description plus schema is nearly enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. However, with no output schema, the description does not clarify what is returned or how errors like a missing ID are handled, leaving some contextual 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 provides only an integer 'id' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description's 'by ID' gives the sole parameter meaningful semantics by tying it to the payment-received entity, which is minimal but sufficient for a single required 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a payment received') with a clear lookup qualifier ('by ID'). It is immediately understandable, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools beyond the standard get-by-ID pattern.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies this tool is for retrieving a single, known payment received, which suggests when it should be used versus list_payments_received. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it, prerequisites, or how it relates to create/update payment siblings.

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