get_merchant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get details' implies a non-mutating read operation, and 'including recurring stream configuration' hints at the return structure. However, it doesn't disclose behaviors like error handling for missing merchant_id, response format, or any potential side effects, which would be valuable for an unannotated tool.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Get details') and follows with a key qualifier. Every word adds value and there is no verbose or redundant content.

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 this is a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable starting point but lacks detail on return values beyond 'recurring stream configuration'. It doesn't mention error conditions or whether the response includes other merchant metadata, which would be reasonably expected when no output schema exists.

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?

The input schema lists merchant_id as a required string with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description only says 'for a specific merchant', adding little beyond the parameter name itself. It doesn't clarify whether merchant_id is an internal ID, a slug, or a UUID, leaving the agent to guess the correct value format.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a specific merchant', with the additional qualifier 'including recurring stream configuration' that adds useful scope beyond the tool name alone. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_merchant and get_recurring_transactions.

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 description states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or references to related tools such as update_merchant or get_recurring_transactions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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