postgrid_get_cheque

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does convey that the operation is a read/retrieval operation and lists what is returned (details, status, tracking), but it does not disclose possible errors, authorization needs, or that it has no side effects beyond what 'Get' implies.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It directly states the action, target, and return content in an efficient and scannable way.

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 simple one-parameter retrieval tool, the description conveys what the tool does and what information it returns, which is reasonably complete. It lacks an explicit mention of when to use it versus list_cheques, but the operation's purpose and input are sufficiently clear.

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% — the input schema already documents the id parameter with type and example. The description adds only 'by ID', which is consistent but does not provide meaningful additional semantics.

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'), a resource ('a check/cheque'), and the scope ('details, status, and tracking information by ID'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like list_cheques, create_cheque, and cancel_cheque because it explicitly targets a single existing id.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies the tool is for retrieving one specific cheque, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of list_cheques or cancel_cheque, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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