Get wFirma payment

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate those traits. The phrase 'explicitly selected wFirma client company' adds useful scoping context, but the description discloses no additional behavioral details such as error cases or special constraints beyond the schema.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key facts: read, one payment, and company scoping. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

For a simple read operation with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It does not describe the return payload or error behavior despite no output schema, but the verb 'read one payment' and the tool's getter pattern make the expected result reasonably clear.

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 100%, so both parameters already have clear documentation, including the caution not to use a NIP for companyId. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing that the company must be explicitly selected.

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 'Read one payment from one explicitly selected wFirma client company' uses a specific verb and resource, and makes the singular scope clear. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wfirma_list_payments, which would retrieve multiple payments, and from other getters targeting different resource types.

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 this tool is for retrieving a single payment after choosing a specific company, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over alternatives such as wfirma_list_payments. Context is present, but exclusions and alternative-selection guidance are left to inference.

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