PayPing: payment detail

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and repeat-call profile is fully covered without description help. The description's additional detail (refund state, plain-English status_text) is essentially a preview of the return payload, which the output schema already supplies, and it says nothing about error behavior for an unknown code or 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and lookup key, no filler. The field enumeration is slightly long but each listed field tells the agent what to expect in a verification flow, so it largely earns its place.

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 an output schema present, the description is not obligated to explain return values, and it still identifies the key, the scope (one payment vs. lists), and the primary purpose. For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing essential is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter, 'code', with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema provides no meaning on its own. The description compensates partially by making clear it is the *payment* code (not an invoice or withdrawal code), which is a real disambiguation, but it adds no format, length, or example detail.

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 names a specific verb+resource (retrieve full detail of one payment) and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it fetches. It implicitly separates itself from the list_* siblings by scoping to 'one payment by its payment code', but never names an alternative sibling such as payping_get_invoice or payping_list_transactions.

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 a concrete when-to-use case: 'Use it to check whether a payment really succeeded.' That is clear context for selecting the tool, but there are no exclusions and no routing guidance versus closely related lookups like payping_get_invoice or payping_get_withdrawal.

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