Retrieve (verify) a payment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by telling the agent this is the authoritative check and which returned fields to validate, though it says nothing about errors or not-found behavior.

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, front-loaded sentences that are easy to scan. Minor waste: the first line repeats the title verbatim before the more useful second sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the return fields to validate (status, amount_received), which is the key missing piece for this tool. It omits any mention of the expand parameter's behavior, leaving a small gap.

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 description only restates the id format already documented in the schema. The optional 'expand' parameter and its effect are not mentioned at all, so the description adds no meaning beyond the structured field.

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 ('Retrieve a payment by id') and adds a purpose ('authoritative way to verify a payment server-side'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the obvious sibling get_payment_by_reference, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: server-side verification before delivering value, with concrete success criteria (status 'succeeded', amount_received matches expectation). It stops short of stating exclusions or pointing at get_payment_by_reference for reference-based lookups.

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