get_payment

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining that auth is injected server-side, calls are throttled to LearnWorlds' 30-per-10s cap, retries happen on 429/5xx, and non-2xx responses surface as tool errors with specific status meanings. This is rich behavioral context the agent would not otherwise know.

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 well-organized with labeled sections, front-loaded with a READ-ONLY indicator, and every sentence conveys actionable information. Despite covering safety, auth, throttling, return format, error behavior, and usage context, it remains tight and scannable.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return format and error semantics. It also covers authentication constraints, rate limiting, retry behavior, and when to use the tool. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the one parameter already has a clear description ('Payment Id or Transaction id'). The description mentions 'provided payment id' but adds no meaningful detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get payment' and 'Returns information about the payment specified by the provided payment id.' It clearly identifies this as a single-record lookup, distinguishing it from the plural sibling get_payments and the related get_invoice_link_per_payment.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use when: safe to call speculatively for lookups and reporting' and 'Not for changing anything — use the matching 🟡 write tool.' It also names related Payments tools, giving the agent clear routing guidance versus alternatives.

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