query_payment_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'inquire' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as what happens if the payment request ID is invalid, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The description is minimal beyond the basic purpose.

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 with two sentences and a structured Args block. It is front-loaded with the purpose and includes parameter documentation without unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks information about error handling, prerequisites, or what to do if the payment request ID does not exist. The description is adequate for a simple query tool but could be more complete.

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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the description adds meaning to the payment_request_id parameter by stating it is a unique ID assigned by a merchant and specifying a maximum length of 64 characters. This provides context beyond the schema's type and title.

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 tool is used to inquire about transaction status and other information for a previously submitted payment request, using a specific verb ('inquire') and resource ('transaction status and other information'). It distinguishes from siblings like cancel_payment or create_refund which serve different purposes.

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 usage for querying previously submitted payment requests but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., query_refund_detail) or when not to use it. No exclusions or context for when this tool is appropriate are provided.

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