Get a payment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it enumerates the status lifecycle and discloses the conditional behavior that only payments past 'created' return crypto amount, currency and wallet address. It omits error behavior for an unknown or malformed id, which is the main remaining gap for a lookup tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its input source, then a compact status glossary. Every clause earns its place: the status meanings and the conditional-fields note both affect how an agent interprets the result.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must cover return semantics, and it does by decoding the status field and the conditional crypto fields. Only the failure mode for a nonexistent id is left unaddressed, and for a one-parameter read tool the remaining picture is essentially 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 coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is already documented with type, minLength and an example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful provenance by tying the id to create_payment's return value, which is not present in 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Look up one payment by the id create_payment returned' states exactly what is fetched and the scoping is a single record, which cleanly separates it from list_payments. It also names the sibling that produces the required id, so an agent can identify both the input source and the tool's boundary.

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 establishes the usage context (call after create_payment, to check where a payment stands) and explains what each status means operationally, including 'safe to deliver' for confirmed states. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative (list_payments) or stating when not to use it, so it is strong context without full routing guidance.

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