get_job_payment

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

No annotations were provided, but the description discloses the tool is read-only (maps to GET endpoint) and financially sensitive, implying authorization requirements. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 three concise sentences: the purpose, the access sensitivity, and the endpoint mapping. Every sentence adds unique value with no 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?

Given the simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage restrictions, and endpoint. It could be improved by briefly noting the return format (e.g., a payment object) but is otherwise complete.

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 input schema has one required parameter 'uuid' with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not elaborate on the parameter beyond its name, which is self-explanatory but minimal. The description adds no extra meaning over the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 'Get a single payment recorded against a job.' It specifies the verb (Get), resource (single payment), and context (recorded against a job). The sibling tool 'list_job_payments' suggests listing, so this distinguishes as a single-item retrieval.

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 mentions 'Financially sensitive — kept at admin tier rather than everyday office-ops by UUID,' indicating that access is restricted and that the tool is for specific lookups by UUID. This provides context on when to use (admin scenarios) but does not explicitly name alternatives like 'list_job_payments' for listing.

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