انتظار برای وضعیت پرداخت TheyPaid

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the polling behavior and terminal states, plus that it returns the latest status when the wait ends, but it omits important details such as blocking behavior, possible intermediate statuses, error handling, and permission/auth requirements.

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 dense sentence with no wasted words and front-loads the core polling behavior and terminal conditions. It is appropriately sized, though the semicolon construction is slightly compressed for the amount of behavioral nuance it tries to convey.

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?

For a polling tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough. It explains the core wait condition and return summary, but leaves the three parameters, return format, and failure/error behavior undocumented.

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 for undocumented parameters. It only indirectly implies a wait-time concept and says nothing about invoiceId being required, timeoutMs defaults/limits, or intervalMs controlling polling frequency.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: reading invoice status from TheyPaid, polling until PAID, INSUFFICIENT, EXPIRED, or timeout, then returning the latest status. This distinguishes it as a waiting/polling tool rather than an immediate check, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as check_payment or get_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 description implies when to use the tool: when the caller wants to wait for an invoice to reach a terminal payment state or timeout. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with nearby tools like check_payment, recheck_invoice, or get_invoice.

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