payment_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only, idempotent operation but does not mention authentication requirements (though implied by the schema), rate limits, or whether the status is pollable. Lacks detail on side effects or response behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence (9 words) that conveys the core purpose without any superfluous information. It is front-loaded and 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?

Despite the tool having no output schema and a moderately complex input (nested headers, 3 required parameters), the description fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., status values, error handling) or how to interpret results. It leaves significant gaps for an agent to act correctly.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter-level context. The baseline of 3 applies as the description does not compensate for or clarify parameter nuances beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Check the final status of a previously initiated payment collection.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('final status of a previously initiated payment collection'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that initiate payments or check other statuses.

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 after initiating a payment collection but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'transfer_status' or when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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