get_payment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get details') and specifies return fields ('amount, status, payment method, customer info, and more'), which adds useful context beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or whether it's idempotent, which are important 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds return details in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameter intent, and return fields. However, it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like error cases or idempotency, especially since annotations are absent.

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 clarifies that 'payment_id' is required to retrieve a single payment, adding meaning beyond the schema's basic type and requirement. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., string length or pattern) or provide examples, leaving some semantic gaps. With 0 parameters documented in the schema, the description does a good but not complete job.

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: 'Get details of a single payment by ID' specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('payment'), and scope ('single payment by ID'). It distinguishes from sibling 'list_payments' by focusing on individual retrieval rather than listing multiple payments. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other get_* tools like 'get_invoice' or 'get_customer' beyond the resource type.

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 usage context through 'by ID,' suggesting it's for retrieving specific known payments. It doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_payments' for browsing or other get_* tools for different resources. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat inferred rather than clearly defined.

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