get_payment

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' reasonably signals a non-mutating single-record fetch, but nothing states behavior on a missing/invalid ID, whether lookup is case-sensitive, or what the response contains.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no redundant text. The parenthetical API version is the only extra and is cheap.

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 getter the description is adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema it never indicates what a payment record contains or how failures appear, leaving the agent to infer return behavior.

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 100% with a single required paymentId, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description only restates that the ID identifies the payment and adds no format or source hints (e.g., where payment IDs come from).

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific payment') plus the key selector ('by ID'), so its purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with near siblings like list_payments or get_document_payments, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 prerequisite (a known payment ID) and implies the split from list_payments, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as get_document_payments for document-scoped payments.

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