get_payment_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature ('Check whether'), the returned fields (paid, payment.status, autoTopup remaining today), and the state-dependent constraint (max 3 auto-topups; do not create another payment). It doesn't explicitly discuss authentication or rate limits, but for this status-check tool the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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?

Three concise sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and no filler. Each sentence adds distinct value: what it checks, when to call it, what it returns, and what action to avoid.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema status check, the description is complete. It covers the trigger condition, the returned signals, a business rule (max 3 auto-topups), and a high-level guardrail (do not create another payment). An agent has enough information to invoke and interpret this tool correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully describes the input surface. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that the tool operates on the 'last' top-up/payment without requiring user input. Baseline of 4 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') with a clear resource ('whether the last top-up/payment succeeded') and also names the related trigger create_topup_intent. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_purchase or get_purchase_status by focusing on top-up/payment status.

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 explicitly states when to call this tool: after create_topup_intent or when the user asks phrases like «оплата прошла», «списали карту». It also provides an exclusionary guideline: if payment is pending or succeeded, do not create another payment. This gives the agent actionable selection criteria.

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