Get payout

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns status, amount, and destination, which is useful, but it does not disclose error handling, pagination, or other behavioral traits. This is acceptable given the annotations.

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 concise, with two short sentences front-loading the purpose and key return fields. No unnecessary information is included, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple single-parameter, read-only get tool with an output schema and full parameter coverage, the description is sufficient to understand the basic function and expected return values. It omits edge cases like not-found behavior, but the overall context is adequately complete.

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 coverage is 100% with payout_id described as 'Payout ID'. The description's 'by ID' aligns with the schema but adds no additional meaning beyond what the parameter schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'payout details by ID', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_payment or get_refund. It also lists key return fields, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to fetch payout details by ID. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the context alone is sufficient for a straightforward lookup tool.

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