Retrieve Payment Intent

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

The description does not add behavioral detail beyond the annotation 'readOnlyHint: true', which already informs the agent that the tool is safe and idempotent. The description could mention that it returns the PaymentIntent object, but lacking an output schema, the agent still has some uncertainty. A score of 3 reflects adequate transparency given annotation coverage.

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 (6 words) and front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word is essential; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks contextual cues such as that the PaymentIntent must exist or that the tool is best used after creation, which slightly reduces completeness for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 already covers the single parameter with a pattern and description ('PaymentIntent ID (pi_...)'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter, 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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and the resource ('a PaymentIntent'), and specifies the key parameter ('by ID'). This explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_payment_intents' (which retrieves multiple) and other 'retrieve_*' tools for different resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use 'list_payment_intents' instead, nor does it mention any prerequisites or contextual conditions. This forces the agent to rely solely on the tool name and context.

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