beel_retry_payment_event

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

The description reveals key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it applies the NIF's configuration 'as it stands now', enforces a 3-attempt limit (`retry_count`), and returns 400 for non-retryable events. It also explains idempotency behavior in detail (derived key collapses identical operations for 24 hours, custom key separates them), which is valuable for understanding side effects. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false) — the description actually enriches them.

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 efficiently structured: the main purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance, retry conditions, and the endpoint. Every sentence contributes essential information; there is no redundancy. The use of bullet-like formatting (line breaks) improves readability without adding 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?

The description covers all critical aspects needed to correctly invoke the tool: the purpose, when to use it, eligibility conditions, error behavior (400), and idempotency handling. It also includes the endpoint, which aids in understanding the operation. Given that no output schema is provided, the description sufficiently prepares the agent to call the tool safely and 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds extra semantic value by linking event_id to `retry_available` (clarifying eligibility) and by giving practical advice on idempotency_key (when to set a custom one). This goes beyond the schema's basic definitions, but doesn't fully redefine the parameters, so a slight bump above baseline is warranted.

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 ('Reprocesses'), a specific resource ('a payment event'), and the precise context ('whose automatic invoicing did not complete'), making the tool's function unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like beel_get_payment_event and beel_generate_payment_event_draft by focusing on retry, not retrieval or draft generation.

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 tells the agent when to use the tool: 'Use it after fixing what caused the failure', and provides a clear exclusion: only events with `retry_available` equal to `true` are eligible, otherwise a 400 is returned. It even advises reading `retry_available` instead of deriving retryability from `status`, which is direct, actionable guidance.

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