beel_get_payment_event

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable context about error semantics (404 for both non-existent and non-owned events, preventing disclosure) and the content of the response (automatic invoicing outcome, stable failure code). This goes beyond the annotations and enriches the agent's understanding of behavior.

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 extremely concise and well-structured. The primary purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by a clarification of error semantics, and ends with the endpoint. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 annotations already covering safety, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the response includes, how errors are handled, and the endpoint. A full output schema is absent, but the description fills key gaps. It could mention pagination or more detailed response structure, but that's not essential for a single-event retrieval.

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 all three parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. It does not clarify formats or relationships further, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 specific verb ('retrieves') and resource ('a single payment event'), and details what is included (outcome of automatic invoicing and failure code). It clearly distinguishes from list and retry siblings by focusing on single-event retrieval. The endpoint is also provided.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like beel_list_payment_events or beel_retry_payment_event. It implies use when you have a specific event_id (schema notes it comes from list), but no explicit direction or exclusions are given. An agent might need to infer the appropriate workflow.

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