get_payment

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is safe/read-only, nor does it describe the return format, error behavior, or required permissions. Minimal behavioral detail is provided.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action. It avoids unnecessary verbosity while being sufficiently informative for a simple retrieval tool. Slightly more detail could be added without breaking conciseness, but the current structure is efficient.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'payment details' includes, how this differs from verify_payment, or provide edge-case context. The tool has two required parameters and a specific domain (IDPay), but the description offers no contextual richness.

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 100%, and the schema provides clear meanings for both 'id' (Payment ID from IDPay) and 'order_id' (Your order ID). The description's 'by ID' adds no additional semantic value and could be ambiguous due to two IDs, but the schema fully compensates, so the baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb (Get) and resource (payment details), clearly indicating the tool's retrieval function. It is distinct from create/verify siblings in purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from verify_payment. The 'by ID' phrase is slightly ambiguous given two ID parameters, but the core purpose is clear.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify_payment or list_transactions. It simply states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context.

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