Payment Providers Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the required read_payments scope and the API version 2025-03, which are useful for auth planning and version-drift awareness.

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 verb+resource, followed by endpoint, scope and API version on separate lines. No filler, though the HTTP line largely restates the schema's required id.

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?

For a simple three-parameter read with full schema coverage and a clear annotation set, the description covers scope and version. It stops short of describing what a payment provider payload contains, but with no output schema that is a modest gap for a getter.

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 100%, so id, fields and response_format are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond that (for example, that id is a path parameter is only visible via the HTTP line), so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Get one payment provider", which clearly distinguishes a single-fetch from the sibling tiendanube_payment_providers_list. The distinction is made by the word "one" rather than an explicit statement, so it is one notch short of fully explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch a single provider, presumably when you already have its id. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over tiendanube_payment_providers_list or tiendanube_payment_provider_options_list, and no prerequisites beyond the required scope.

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