Get Outgoing Payment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral requirement (the grant must be finalized) and the read non-destructive nature via the verb 'Read'. However, it does not mention error handling, response format, or any rate limits, so it offers limited 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose and prerequisite.

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 description is too sparse for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It omits parameter semantics and return value expectations, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone. The grant requirement is useful but insufficient for confident invocation.

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 provides no direct explanation of the two parameters. It indirectly hints that grantSessionId relates to the grant and outgoingPaymentUrl to the payment, but it does not clarify their formats, how to obtain them, or their exact roles.

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 identifies the specific action ('Read') and resource ('outgoing payment details'), and adds a prerequisite ('finalized outgoing-payment read grant'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_incoming_payment and create_outgoing_payment by specifying the read-only nature and the grant requirement.

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 when a finalized outgoing-payment read grant is available, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks exclusions or naming of sibling tools for comparison.

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