Retrieve a payment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — not what happens on a missing/invalid id, nor what a payment record contains — so it contributes nothing beyond the structured fields.

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?

It is a single short sentence, so nothing is bloated, but the sentence does not earn its place — it duplicates the title without adding information. Brevity here comes from under-specification, not from disciplined editing.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotations and full schema coverage, little is strictly required, and no output schema means return values need not be explained. Still, the absence of any hint about locating an id or relating this to list_payments leaves an agent with no routing context.

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?

Only one parameter, id, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not clarify whether the id is a payment id versus a customer/invoice id, but the schema already carries the parameter documentation.

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?

"Retrieve a payment" restates the tool name and title verbatim, adding nothing. It does name a resource but gives no differentiation from list_payments or the many sibling retrieve_* tools, so it reads as a tautology rather than a purpose statement.

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 list_payments (to discover an id) or retrieve_invoice/retrieve_receipt for adjacent objects. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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