get_payment_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds value by stating that it returns verification status and warns against trusting redirects alone, which is a meaningful behavioral trait beyond the tool name. It could say more about response shape or errors, but for a simple read operation it is reasonably 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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. The core action and resource are front-loaded, the return fields are compactly listed, and the important caveat about redirects is included without overexplaining.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (payment row fields and verification status) and gives a critical usage warning. It does not enumerate possible status values or error conditions, but the tool is simple enough that the description is largely sufficient.

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 covers the single parameter requestId with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific details, but the parenthetical mention of serviceRequestId being unique provides minor contextual reinforcement.

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 action (get) and resource (payment state/status for a service request), and lists the relevant fields. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling verify_payment, though the resource focus is reasonably distinct.

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 warning 'never trust redirect alone' implies this tool should be used when authoritative verification is needed, rather than relying on redirects. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so guidance remains implied.

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