verify_payment

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Verify', which gives no information about side effects, external API calls, authentication requirements, or what the tool actually does beyond the name. No return format or error behavior is described.

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 extremely short at one phrase, but this is under-specification rather than good conciseness. It doesn't earn its place because it provides no more information than the tool name. A concise but informative description would add context, but this one merely restates.

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?

The tool has only two parameters and no output schema, so the description is the primary source of context. It fails to explain what verification involves, what the result looks like, or how it differs from related payment tools. This is completely inadequate for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('Payment ID from IDPay' and 'Your order ID'). The description adds no additional meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 'Verify an IDPay payment' is almost a direct restatement of the tool name 'verify_payment'. It does not specify what verifying means (e.g., checking status, validating against IDPay), nor does it distinguish this from the sibling tool get_payment. This is essentially a tautology with a brand name attached.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use verify_payment versus alternatives such as get_payment or list_transactions. No context is provided about scenarios where verification is needed, nor are exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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