Gateway capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, and the description adds real value by disclosing the shape of what comes back: feature statuses, payment methods, env vars, constraints, SDKs and platform plugins. It stops short of saying whether the data is static/cached or how large the payload is.

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 front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource first, then the enumerated contents. The parenthetical list is dense but each item is a distinct disclosed return field, so nothing reads as padding.

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 output schema, the field enumeration is exactly what an agent needs to know what the call yields, and the single-param schema is trivial. The only real gap is the lack of routing guidance against the many sibling tools.

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?

Only one parameter, fully documented in the schema with a type and enum of gateway ids, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra meaning about the provider argument (e.g. that it must be a supported id from payments_list_providers), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource and scope: a full capability map for exactly one gateway, and enumerates what the map contains. It does not differentiate itself from near-siblings like payments_check_config or payments_list_providers, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; the agent must infer that this is the discovery call to make before integrating a specific gateway. Nothing tells it why to pick this over payments_check_config or payments_list_providers.

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