get_payment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation and hints that the status is 'atualizado' (live/current), but says nothing about authentication requirements, error cases, or whether data is fetched remotely versus cached.

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?

One short sentence with the key scope (details + updated status + by ID) front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though it could carry a bit more useful detail without becoming bloated.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it indicates details and status are returned, which compensates slightly for the missing output schema, but leaves auth, error, and freshness behavior unspecified.

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% and the single payment_id parameter is fully documented in the schema with a format example (pay_081234567890). The description only restates 'pelo ID', adding no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (consulta) and resource (detalhes e status de uma cobrança pelo ID), making clear this is a single-record lookup rather than a list or creation call. It does not explicitly name how it differs from siblings like get_pix_status or list_payments, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent can infer it is for fetching one charge by ID, but nothing tells it when to prefer this over list_payments or how it relates to get_pix_status.

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