check_invoice_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks if an invoice has been paid, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., status codes or data format). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and input source. There is no wasted language, and every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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 the complexity of checking invoice status in a Lightning network context, the description is incomplete. There is no output schema, and the description does not explain return values (e.g., paid/unpaid status, timestamps, or error messages). With no annotations and minimal behavioral details, the description fails to provide enough context for effective tool use, especially in a system with multiple payment-related siblings.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'invoice_id' fully documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reiterating that the invoice ID comes from 'create_invoice', but it does not provide additional semantics like format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('check') and resource ('Lightning invoice status'), and it identifies the required input ('invoice ID from create_invoice'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'confirm_payment' or 'get_payment_history', which might offer overlapping functionality, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides implied usage by specifying to 'Use the invoice ID from create_invoice', which suggests a prerequisite and context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'confirm_payment' or 'get_payment_history'), and it does not mention any exclusions or edge cases, leaving room for ambiguity.

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