Состояние платёжной попытки

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

The description adds important context beyond the readOnlyHint: it warns that the tool only surfaces what MCP recorded, which may differ from the actual account state, and that 'unknown' outcome is a possible return. This is valuable behavioral caveat for an agent choosing whether to trust the result.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and status categories. The second sentence adds useful cross-tool context but could be tightened without losing meaning. Overall, each sentence contributes, though it is slightly dense for a simple lookup tool.

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?

Since an output schema is present, the return-value details may be defined elsewhere. Still, the description could be more complete by indicating where attempt_id typically comes from, such as from a payment initiation call, and by making clear what 'MCP attempted log' means to an agent without domain familiarity.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to compensate by explaining what attempt_id is, where it originates, and how it should be obtained. It merely repeats the parameter name in context, leaving the agent to deduce what kind of identifier this is and how to acquire it.

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 defines the tool as a status lookup for a payment attempt by attempt_id, enumerates the possible states (pending, confirmed, unknown), and names the underlying resource it reads (MCP attempt log). It also implicitly separates this read-only status tool from executable sibling tools like confirm_payment.

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 explicitly tells the agent when information from this tool is not definitive, pointing to list_operations as ground truth. It also gives actionable guidance: if a pending payment has no corresponding charge in list_operations, the agent can confirm it via confirm_payment(attempt_id, otp). This is strong when-to-use versus when-to-cross-check guidance.

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