نمایش فاکتور TheyPaid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals a read ('می‌خواند') but never says whether the status is served from cache or freshly fetched from the provider — critical given a sibling named theyypaid_recheck_invoice — nor what happens when the invoice is missing or unauthorized, and no output schema documents the shape of the returned 'details and status'.

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?

A single short sentence with the action and the keying mechanism front-loaded; nothing is redundant. It is efficient, though its brevity edges into under-specification rather than tight information design.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, this description leaves too much open for an agent working in a 32-tool surface dense with invoice-related siblings. At minimum it should clarify the read semantics versus recheck_invoice and check_payment.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does establish that the single parameter is the invoice identifier, which is more than the bare schema says, but it adds no format, sourcing, or validity guidance (the pattern and length limits exist only in the schema).

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: it reads ('می‌خواند') the invoice details and current status from TheyPaid, keyed by ID. That is enough to separate it from mutation siblings like theyypaid_create_invoice or theyypaid_delete_store, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from theyypaid_list_invoices, theyypaid_check_payment, or theyypaid_recheck_invoice.

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 phrase 'with its ID' implies usage: call this when you already hold an invoice identifier. It never says when to prefer it over the closely related siblings (list_invoices for discovery, recheck_invoice for a forced provider refresh, wait_for_payment for polling), leaving a genuinely ambiguous choice to inference.

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