bos_payment_verify

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

No annotations provided. The word 'verify' is ambiguous; it could be a read-only check or a write operation that triggers a verification process. The description does not clarify read/write nature, side effects, permissions, or error states. Without annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 short (three words), which sacrifices completeness. While brevity is good, it omits essential context about the parameter and behavior. It is under-specified, not concise in a helpful way.

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 the simple schema (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description still fails to provide enough context. It does not explain what the result looks like (e.g., returned status, error conditions), prerequisites, or when to use this tool. The minimalism leaves critical gaps.

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 0%. The single parameter 'order_id' has no description in the schema, and the tool description does not mention it at all. The agent receives no information about what the parameter represents or its format.

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 'Verify payment status' clearly states the action (verify) and the resource (payment status). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like bos_order_show (shows order details) or bos_payment_methods (lists methods). However, it could be more precise about what is verified (e.g., for a given order).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There are many order and payment tools (e.g., bos_order_show, bos_order_transactions) but no context on when 'verify' is appropriate. No when-not or alternative mentions.

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