get_remittance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a safe read, but it says nothing about permissions, not-found behavior, or what is actually returned; the v2 route note is API-internal trivia that does not help an agent decide or invoke.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no padding. The route-relocation note is marginal value for an agent but short enough not to be a real cost.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it retrieves but not what the result looks like or how it relates to list_remittances. Adequate to invoke, incomplete for confident selection among siblings.

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% and the single parameter is documented as 'Remittance ID', so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format, provenance, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a specific remittance by ID'), so the agent knows this is a single-item lookup rather than a list. It does not name the sibling list_remittances, but the singular/ID framing implicitly separates it from the bulk tool.

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?

Usage is only implied: retrieving one remittance requires an ID, which presumably comes from list_remittances, but the description never says that or states when not to use it. No prerequisites or error conditions are mentioned.

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