query_payment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'query' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or error behavior. It adds context about polling after timeout, but misses details about return format or idempotency, leaving some ambiguity.

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: two sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states purpose and usage context; the second describes the parameter. No unnecessary fluff, and the structure is clean and front-loaded.

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 query tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, parameter, and usage context. It does not explain return values, but the output schema likely covers that. It could mention permission requirements or example usage, but the current level is sufficient for a straightforward polling query.

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 0%, but the tool description fully explains the only parameter: payment_request_id, including its role (assigned by merchant) and maximum length (64 characters). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema field name, compensating well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb 'query' and the resource 'payment result', and specifies the context (when no payment result is received). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_payment and cancel_payment, which are mutations, and query_customs_declare, which targets a different resource.

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 gives a clear when-to-use condition: 'if no payment result is received after a certain period of time'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the condition effectively frames appropriate usage. Sibling tool names provide contextual differentiation.

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