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. It implies a read-only operation ('Détails') but provides no information about return format, potential errors, required permissions, or side effects. For a simple retrieval tool this is minimal, but it still leaves key behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 short phrase, 'Détails d'une transaction bancaire', which is concise and front-loaded. It contains no unnecessary words. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity, which is a slight issue but conciseness itself is appropriate.

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 has two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this one-line description is insufficient. It does not clarify how the parameters identify the transaction, what the returned details might include, or how this tool relates to the many payment and banking siblings. The French phrasing may also cause ambiguity for non-French agents.

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% for the two parameters (account_id, line_id). The description does not explain what these parameters mean or how they relate to the bank transaction. With no parameter descriptions in the schema and no compensation in the tool description, the agent cannot determine the correct values to provide.

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 'Détails d'une transaction bancaire' clearly indicates a read operation for a bank transaction, which aligns with the tool name get_payment. It specifies the resource (transaction bancaire) and implies a single item, distinguishing from list_payments. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other payment-related tools like get_bank_reconciliation or get_bank_transactions, so a small deduction applies.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, such as obtaining account_id and line_id, or that this is the singular counterpart to list_payments. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and parameters, which is insufficient.

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