get_payment_terms

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The description merely states 'Fetch payment terms configurations', which conveys that it's a read operation but adds no context about response format, pagination defaults, error handling, or rate limits. The schema mentions pagination parameters but the description doesn't elaborate on how they affect behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easily scannable. However, it may be too terse for a tool with pagination, but that is covered under completeness.

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?

This is a simple list-style tool with two parameters and no output schema. The description is minimal ('Fetch payment terms configurations') and does not specify what is returned, how pagination works, or whether it lists all or a single item. With no annotations to fill the gap, the description is insufficient for an AI agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly and interpret results. Given the context signals, the tool likely returns a list of payment terms, but the description does not state this.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters with descriptions: 'after' as a pagination cursor and 'first' as the number of payment terms (1-250, default 50). The description does not add parameter information, but since schema coverage is 100%, this is acceptable per the baseline. The description's lack of parameter explanation is compensated by the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Fetch' with the resource 'payment terms configurations', clearly identifying this as a read operation on payment terms settings. It differentiates from sibling tools like create_payment_terms, update_payment_terms, and delete_payment_terms, as well as get_payment_mandates, by naming the exact resource and action.

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 information about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. For example, it doesn't explain that this is for retrieving configurations as opposed to mandates, or that it complements create/update/delete operations. The user must infer the usage purely from the name and schema.

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