get_payment_intent

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying the fields returned (status, amount, errors). While it doesn't detail all possible behaviors or error states, it gives a clear sense of the tool's output and confirms its read-only nature.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: the first defines the function, the second gives usage guidance. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 simplicity of the tool (single parameter, read-only retrieval), the description covers the essentials. It mentions key fields in the response, though lacking an output schema, the description is nearly complete. A bit more detail on the response structure could push it to a 5.

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 provides a clear description for the single parameter 'id', and the tool description does not add further semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers. With 100% schema coverage, 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 (retrieves details), the resource (specific Stripe PaymentIntent), and the information included (status, amount, errors). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_payment_intents (which lists multiple) and other get_* 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?

Directly states when to use the tool: 'check the status of a specific transaction.' While it doesn't explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives, the context of sibling tools provides clear differentiation.

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