verify_payment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers a key behavioral disclosure: verification is server-side and contacting the provider is necessary. The caveat about redirects being insufficient is genuinely informative beyond what the tool name suggests. Minor gaps remain, such as side effects on payment state and possible error conditions, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 sentences, no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the critical caveat about redirects is included in the second sentence. Every part of the description adds value.

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 sufficient for selecting the tool and understanding its authoritative server-side nature. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent gets no guidance on return values, and the required requestId parameter is left unexplained. It also does not clarify when get_payment_status would be the better choice, leaving a noticeable completeness gap.

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 only 50%: paymentId has a description, but requestId has none. The description does not explain requestId at all, nor does it clarify how the two parameters relate. It mentions provider types, which adds slight context for interpreting paymentId, but it does not compensate for the undocumented required requestId parameter.

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 verb and resource: 'Verify a payment with the provider.' It adds specific context about Flouci and Stripe, and the phrase 'Triggers server-side verification' distinguishes it from a passive status lookup. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling get_payment_status tool, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 when to use the tool: when provider-side verification is needed, because 'redirect back to the portal alone is never proof of payment.' This gives useful context, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the alternative get_payment_status for local/cached status checks. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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