Get payment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'get payment information' with no mention of side effects, read-only nature, error conditions, or return format, leaving the agent with zero behavioral context.

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?

The description is one short phrase, but it is under-specified rather than concise. Every word repeats what the title already conveys, and no information is added that would help an agent; it does not 'earn 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?

With only one required parameter and no output schema, the description should at least clarify what the tool returns and how the parameter is used. It provides neither, making the tool effectively unusable without external knowledge.

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 sole parameter order_number has a 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation of its meaning, format, or usage. The description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation, making it impossible to use correctly without additional context.

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 '決済情報取得（getPayment）' is a direct Japanese translation of the tool name, restating the title without adding specificity. It does not distinguish the tool from sibling tools like rms_order_detail, which could also return payment-related data, and fails to clarify what 'payment' entails (e.g., status, method, amount).

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rms_search_orders or rms_order_detail. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints about the appropriate scenarios for invoking this tool.

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