freshbooks_get_payment

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the non-destructive safety profile, and the description confirms a single-record fetch by id. It does not disclose error/not-found behavior, auth requirements, or response shape, but for such a simple read-only tool this is a minor gap rather than a serious omission.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation, the resource, and the required id selector.

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 one-parameter, read-only getter, this is nearly complete: the operation and required argument are clear, and readOnlyHint covers side effects. The absence of an output schema means return shape is not described, but the tool's simplicity makes that a tolerable gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the id parameter is already documented as an integer payment id. The description's 'numeric FreshBooks id' adds slight domain context, but it mostly restates what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline.

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 ('Get'), names the resource ('a single payment'), and specifies the selection mechanism ('by its numeric FreshBooks id'). This clearly distinguishes it from freshbooks_list_payments and freshbooks_record_payment without needing to inspect schemas.

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 'single... by id' phrasing implies the tool is for retrieving one known payment, but it never explicitly tells the agent when to prefer it over freshbooks_list_payments or what conditions make it the right choice. No alternatives are named and no exclusions are stated.

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