get_payment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves payment details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't address key aspects like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), rate limits, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core action, and the second specifies the return details. There's no unnecessary information, and it efficiently communicates the essential purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating usage context from behavior.

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 tool's complexity (simple retrieval with one parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and return scope but misses critical context like error scenarios, authentication, and differentiation from siblings. For a tool with no structured data support, it's adequate but leaves clear gaps for an AI agent.

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 description adds minimal semantic value beyond the input schema. It mentions 'payment_id' as the parameter but doesn't explain its format (e.g., UUID, numeric), source, or constraints. With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, though it at least names the parameter. This meets the baseline for minimal viability.

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 tool's purpose: 'Retrieve a payment by its ID' specifies the verb (retrieve) and resource (payment), and 'Returns full payment details including status, amount, payer info' indicates the scope of information returned. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_payments' or 'get_merchant_info', which would require a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_payment' over 'search_payments' (e.g., for a specific ID vs. filtering), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of contextual usage information limits its effectiveness for an AI agent.

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