get_guest_payment_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context: access restricted to hosts, and the return format (payments array with charges, fees, tax, promo codes). No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence that leads with the primary purpose, then states the key return detail. No filler or redundant information.

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?

Given the output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and annotations, the description is sufficient for a read-only tool. It provides host-only context and the return type, but could be more explicit about how it differs from closely related ticket tools. Still adequate.

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 description coverage is 100%: all three parameters have descriptive text, including the fields param with dot-path options. The description adds little beyond summarizing what the payments array contains, which the schema already enumerates. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), the resource ('ticket payment history'), and scope ('for a specific guest on a hosted Partiful event'). It also notes 'host-only', which distinguishes it from broader ticket tools like get_tickets_for_event.

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 clear usage context: a host retrieving a specific guest's payment history. It mentions 'host-only' but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. That's sufficient context, but not the explicit exclusions that would earn a 5.

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