Get payment

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those: it describes the error behavior for an unknown ID ('returns ok=false with status 404') and clarifies that the SyncToken is required by update/delete operations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose and return fields, use cases/routing, and error behavior with fallback. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 single-ID read tool with a rich output schema and thorough annotations, the description is complete. It covers what is returned, why the agent would call it, how to handle an unknown ID, and how the result feeds into sibling mutation tools. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents payment_id. The description adds the phrase 'by QuickBooks Id' and the concept that this ID comes from search/list/create, but this is largely redundant with the schema. A baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource—'Read one payment by QuickBooks Id'—and enumerates the exact fields returned (total, transaction date, linked transactions, SyncToken). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_payments and search_payments by focusing on a single payment lookup.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: to confirm which invoice a payment was applied to and to obtain the SyncToken needed by update_payment and delete_payment. It also gives a direct alternative for unknown IDs, pointing to search_payments or list_payments. This is explicit routing guidance.

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