Commerce Payment Gateway Get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about authentication needs, error behavior for an invalid ID, or whether the lookup is cached/read-only. There is no contradiction, but the behavioral picture is essentially blank.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, which is structurally good, but the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness given the undocumented parameter and absent behavioral context.

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 presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, which helps. However, for a tool with two parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description omits the meaning of 'include' and any usage context, leaving real gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only covers one of two parameters ('by ID' maps to gateway_id). The 'include' parameter is entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving its purpose and accepted values unknown.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (payment gateway) and qualifies the scope as 'a single... by ID', which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling commerce_payment_gateway_list. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 this versus commerce_payment_gateway_list, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only signal is the word 'single' in the name/description, which forces the agent to infer the routing decision.

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