Payment status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-call profile is covered. The description adds that this is the authoritative gateway source for reconciliation, which is useful context beyond annotations. It still does not describe error behavior, latency, auth needs, or return details.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and the reconciliation context immediately.

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 read-only status lookup with annotations covering safety and external access, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and a reconciliation-critical purpose, it is thin on what status data is returned and how optional parameters like include_raw and provider_order_id should be used.

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 75%, with provider, order_ref, and include_raw documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level semantics and does not compensate for provider_order_id being undocumented. A 3 reflects adequate schema coverage with a remaining gap.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: fetching payment status from the gateway. The phrase 'source of truth for reconciliation' gives useful scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as payments_verify_payment or payments_get_refund_status, so it falls short of a 5.

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 reconciliation/source-of-truth framing implies when this tool is useful, but it gives no explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives. An agent must infer that verification and refund-status checks belong to other sibling tools.

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