get_payment_gateway

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which are consistent with the description's read-only nature. However, the description adds no additional behavioral details such as return format or potential side effects, relying on the annotations.

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 concise sentence in Russian, translating to 'Payment methods of a specific invoice (whmcs/getpaymentgw).' It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no redundant words.

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 read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly indicates the input (invoice_id) and the purpose (payment methods). While it does not describe the return structure, this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The only parameter invoice_id is fully documented in the schema with a description ('Invoice number'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add extra parameter context, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning.

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 states a clear purpose: retrieving payment methods for a specific invoice. The verb 'get' is implied by the name, and the resource 'payment methods' plus scope 'specific invoice' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_invoice or download_invoice.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_invoice or get_transactions. The description only mentions the underlying API call (whmcs/getpaymentgw) without providing context on selection criteria.

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