fo_get_payment_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It correctly identifies the operation as a read ('Get'), but does not mention pagination, rate limits, or performance implications. The description is minimally transparent.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is minimal for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema. It hints at the return structure ('detailed payout breakdown by advertiser') but omits pagination behavior, filtering options, and output format. Adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 50% (only date params described). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond 'by advertiser', which is vague. It does not explain 'page' or 'pageSize' parameters. Baseline is 3, but missing detail for half the parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('detailed payout breakdown by advertiser'), and scope ('for a date range'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'fo_get_payment_summary' which likely provides a summary, making the unique purpose clear.

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?

Usage is implied: use when needing detailed payout breakdown by advertiser versus summary. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. The description lacks context for selecting this tool.

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