Get payout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the required auth scope (view_payouts) and that no local effect approval is needed, which is real operational context an agent cannot get from 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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the resource, scope and read-only nature stated up front. Nothing is wasted, though the opening sentence duplicates the name and the approval clause is slightly cryptic.

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-resource GET with no output schema, full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining essentials: the endpoint and the required scope. It is adequate, though it omits error/not-found behavior and sibling differentiation.

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%, so the four parameters (account, payout_id, include_sales, include_transactions) are already fully documented, including defaults and response-shaping behavior. The description adds nothing about parameters, 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 first sentence 'Get payout' merely restates the name and title, which is tautological. The second clause adds the native endpoint GET /payouts/:id, confirming this is an ID-based fetch, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like list_payouts or get_upcoming_payout.

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 names the required scope (view_payouts), which implies a precondition, but it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_upcoming_payout or list_payouts. There is no when/when-not framing at all.

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