payware_poi_get

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), the description adds genuinely useful operational context: the auth model (own JWT, ISV calling on your behalf) and the underlying endpoint. It stops short of describing what 'current state' fields are returned, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then scannable bold labels for auth, endpoint, use case, and requirements. Slightly boilerplate-heavy, but every block is short and nothing is buried.

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?

Auth, endpoint, and required param are covered, but with no output schema the description should say what 'full details' actually returns (which configuration and state fields) and whether sandbox vs production affects results. The useSandbox parameter is entirely undiscussed in the prose.

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 poiId format example is already in the schema. The description only restates 'Required: POI ID' and never mentions the useSandbox flag, adding no meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 details of a specific POI') and clarifies the scope as 'full details of a physical payment point including configuration and current state'. It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from near-name siblings such as payware_poi_get_status or payware_poi_get_qrcode, so an agent must infer that those return narrower slices.

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 'Use Case' line implies when to use it (need the complete POI record with config and state), but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no alternative named in the definition. Given siblings like get_status and get_qrcode exist, a short 'use get_status for just the state' line would have earned a 5.

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