Get Instances Payables By Id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of what is returned, whether the record may be missing (404 behavior), or any instance-scoping or auth context.

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?

Two words are technically free of padding, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded because there is essentially no content to structure.

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 read-only single-resource fetch with two undocumented required identifiers and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without the parameter meaning or return shape. Annotations cover safety, but the identifier semantics and expected response remain unexplained.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for two required parameters, yet it mentions neither. An agent must infer that 'id' is the payable identifier and 'instance_id' the tenant context purely from the 15-character example strings.

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 'Retrieve Payable' restates the tool name (Get Instances Payables By Id) almost verbatim, adding only the singular form to hint at single-record retrieval. It does not explain what a payable is or how this differs from GetV1InstancesPayables or DeleteV1InstancesPayablesById, both of which also appear among the 60+ siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. The 'ById' in the name weakly implies fetching one record rather than listing, but the description itself provides no routing guidance among the many sibling GET tools.

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