Get MyFatoorah payment details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it is authoritative, uses a specific GET endpoint, and defines the exact success criteria (Invoice.Status = PAID and Transaction.Status = SUCCESS). No contradiction with 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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action, resource, and endpoint, while the second delivers the critical success rule. Every sentence 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 tool is simple with a single parameter, high schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema. The description covers the essential success logic and authoritative nature, making it complete enough for correct invocation. It could be slightly stronger with an explicit pointer to sibling tools, but this is not essential for a read-only getter.

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 coverage is 100%, with paymentId documented as 'PaymentId from a callback or payment response.' The description mentions 'by PaymentId' but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline without exceeding 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?

Description states a specific verb ('Gets'), resource ('payment details'), and identifier ('PaymentId'), with a direct API endpoint. It is distinct from siblings by focusing on payment details, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from myfatoorah_get_invoice, which could be confused for a closely related operation.

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 usage: use this tool when you have a PaymentId and need authoritative payment details, especially to verify success. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like myfatoorah_get_invoice or myfatoorah_api_request, nor any exclusions.

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