get_payment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that the operation is read-only and that SQL/wildcards are not accepted, which is meaningful safety and input-behavior context. It does not describe not-found or error behavior, but for a simple get-by-id tool this is a minor gap.

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?

Two terse sentences with the core action front-loaded. Every clause adds value: fetching by id, read-only safety, and input restrictions. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description plus the schema pattern are sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The read-only and no-wildcard notes prevent common misuse, and no additional context is necessary.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the paymentId parameter is a pay_… id and clarifies that it is not a SQL expression or wildcard, adding practical meaning beyond the raw regex pattern in the schema.

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 verb, resource, and retrieval method: fetch exactly one synthetic payment by its pay_… id. It also differentiates itself from search/list siblings by explicitly noting it does not accept SQL or wildcards.

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 'by id' phrasing and the explicit rejection of SQL/wildcards signal exact-match retrieval rather than search-style querying, which helps distinguish it from search_logs. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide an exhaustive when-to-use/when-not-to-use breakdown.

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