get_payment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the response includes a breakdown into plan/bump/interest, which is useful. However, it does not mention that the operation is read-only, what happens if the payment_id is invalid, or any error scenarios. The read-only nature is implied by 'Detalhe' but not explicitly stated.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the primary purpose and the distinctive breakdown. It contains no fluff or unnecessary details, though it is arguably terse given the lack of parameter and usage guidance (which is penalized elsewhere).

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, so the description must fully explain what it retrieves and how to use it. It mentions breakdown items but does not clarify that it returns a single payment, how to obtain payment_id, or what happens on errors or missing data. The description is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke it correctly.

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 schema has zero description coverage (0%), and the tool description does not mention the sole parameter payment_id at all. The agent receives no guidance on what payment_id represents or how to obtain it, making it impossible to use the parameter correctly based on the provided text. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema type.

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 states a clear purpose: 'Detalhe de um pagamento' (payment details) with a specific breakdown into items (plan/bump/interest). This distinguishes it from list-type siblings like get_customer_payments by specifying the granularity of the detail, though it does not explicitly say it retrieves a single payment vs a list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_customer_payments or get_payment_link. No mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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