check_payment_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only states the action, without mentioning whether this is read-only, what the response contains, error behavior, or authentication needs. 'Check' weakly implies a read operation but does not disclose behavioral traits.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff or repetition. Every word adds meaning, and the core purpose is immediately actionable.

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 status-check tool with two documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate, but it omits usage context vs. check_transfer_status and does not describe the return format or edge cases. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, a slightly richer description would improve completeness.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds the phrase 'transaction ID or merchant transaction ID,' but it merely paraphrases the identifier parameter's schema description, contributing little extra semantic value.

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 identifies the resource ('status of a CinetPay payment'), while specifying the acceptable identifiers. It is clear, though it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the sibling check_transfer_status beyond the payment/transfer contrast.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as check_transfer_status, or about any required sequence like initializing a payment first. The agent must infer use from the tool name alone.

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