get_payment_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the return fields, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention permissions or rate limits. The verb 'check' implies non-destructiveness, so the gap is moderate.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose and enumerates the return information. Every word is informative, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 status-checking tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It names all return fields, compensating for the missing output schema, and the provided information is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. It could mention error handling, but that is often beyond scope for such a tool.

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 schema already provides a clear description for the single parameter (paymentId) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning or examples beyond what the schema states, just confirming that it handles payments or invoices.

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 tool checks the current status of a payment or invoice, with a specific verb ('Check') and resource. It also lists the return fields (status, amount, confirmations, transaction details), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_withdrawal or get_order.

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 implies the tool is used when you need payment/invoice status, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like get_withdrawal or get_order. No exclusions or alternative-recommendations are provided, but the domain (payments/invoices) is clear.

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