Get Incoming Payment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies the operation as a read (non-mutating), but offers no information about error conditions, return format, validation of grant status, or consequences of using an unfinalized grant.

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 that efficiently conveys the core operation. It is appropriately concise for a simple read tool, though the brevity contributes to the lack of behavioral and parameter detail.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and prerequisites. It vaguely says 'details' without specifying what is returned, and references a grant without explaining how it is obtained or what happens if it is not finalized.

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 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter (grantSessionId, incomingPaymentUrl) or explain their significance beyond the schema's bare types. The agent gets no added meaning to assist with parameter construction.

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 action (read) and resource (incoming payment details), and the word 'incoming' distinguishes it from get_outgoing_payment. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings or elaborate on the scope of 'details', so it stops short of 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 implies the tool should be used with a 'finalized incoming-payment read grant', providing some contextual prerequisite. But it does not mention when to avoid this tool, nor does it suggest alternatives like get_outgoing_payment or create_incoming_payment.

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