freshbooks_get_payment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no behavior for an unknown/nonexistent id, no error semantics, and no note that the id must belong to the authenticated account. For a read tool with full annotation coverage, this leaves the description contributing almost no behavioral 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 single-parameter read operation whose read-only/open-world nature is already declared by annotations and which has no output schema to explain, the description says enough: it names the returned entity and the required identifier. Only minor details such as error behavior on a missing id are absent.

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% and the single parameter 'id' is documented in the schema as 'The payment id' with type integer and a positive minimum. The description only restates this as 'numeric ... id', adding no syntax, format, or sourcing guidance (e.g., where to obtain the id) beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (payment), plus the scope qualifier 'a single' which implicitly contrasts with the sibling freshbooks_list_payments. It stops short of naming the sibling or any differentiating condition explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally distinguishing.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it already has a numeric payment id and wants one record rather than a list. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of freshbooks_list_payments as the alternative, and no prerequisites (e.g., auth or account context).

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