get_invoice_status_by_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Check' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose the return format, whether it polls, error behavior, or explicitly state that no state changes occur. This is a significant gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the key differentiator (bolt11) without any wasted words.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description is minimally viable. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should at least mention what the status response looks like (e.g., 'paid'/'unpaid') to be fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the payment_request parameter. The description only restates 'bolt11', adding no new semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('check') and clearly identifies the resource ('payment status of a Lightning invoice') and the lookup key ('by payment request (bolt11)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_invoice_status (which likely uses an invoice id) and subscribe_invoice_status.

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 tool's usage is implied: use it when you have a bolt11 payment request and want its status. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, which would be helpful given the many invoice-related siblings.

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