get_payment_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool checks status and lists possible states (COMPLETED, PENDING, FAILED), which gives some context about expected behavior. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's idempotent, which are important for a payment-related tool. The description does not contradict annotations, but it's insufficient for full transparency.

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 concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and utility. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Check the status...') and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating usage guidance from purpose, but overall it's well-sized with minimal waste.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and moderate schema coverage, the description provides basic purpose and status context but lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, error cases, or dependencies (e.g., requiring a valid 'transactionID' from 'initiate_payment'), which are crucial for effective tool use. The description is adequate as a starting point but has clear gaps for a payment status tool.

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 description coverage is 50% (only 'transactionID' has a description). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, as it does not explain parameters like 'address' or provide additional context for 'transactionID'. Since schema coverage is moderate, the baseline is 3, but the description fails to compensate for the undocumented 'address' parameter, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('status of a payment transaction'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'initiate_payment' (which creates payments) and 'get_installment_plan' (which retrieves plan details). It explicitly mentions the tool helps understand status states, which adds clarity about its informational role.

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 implies usage by stating it's 'helpful for understanding the various status states... for your application logic,' suggesting it should be used to monitor payment outcomes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vs. 'handle_callback' for real-time updates) or provide exclusions, leaving some ambiguity in context.

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