check_payment_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks payment status but does not describe what 'received' means (e.g., confirmed vs. pending), error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of payment systems and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like response details, error conditions, or integration context, which are crucial for an AI agent to use this tool effectively in real-world scenarios.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'paymentId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or context about payment ID sources). This meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Check if a Lightning payment has been received') and the resource ('for a given payment ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_payment' or 'get_job_result'. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 description implies usage context (checking payment status after creation) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_job_status' or 'get_job_result'. It provides no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.

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