get_fcra_payment_success_indicators

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states a retrieval action, omitting important details such as read-only nature, error handling, permissions, or rate limits. Lacks depth.

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, which is concise but under-specified. It sacrifices essential parameter and usage details, making it more incomplete than concise.

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 tool has 3 required parameters, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is far from complete. It lacks explanation of required parameters, meaning of FCRA PSI, and behavior when results are not found.

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 0%, and the description only mentions payRequestId while failing to explain the roles of account_id and customer_id. The input semantics are severely under-specified.

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 'Retrieve an FCRA PSI result by payRequestId,' which identifies the verb and resource. However, it misleadingly implies the primary key is payRequestId alone, while the input schema requires three parameters (account_id, customer_id, pay_request_id). It also fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'get_payment_success_indicators'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_fcra_payment_success_indicators' or 'get_payment_success_indicators'. The description offers no contextual selection advice.

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