payouts.get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description fails to confirm safety, specify error conditions, return format, or authentication requirements beyond the implicit parameter structure.

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 brief (five words) and contains no redundancy. However, given the lack of annotations and schema descriptions, this brevity contributes to under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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 tool with two completely undocumented parameters (0% coverage), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to document the accountId parameter or explain what constitutes a 'Ryft payout'.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for both parameters. It only implicitly references 'payoutId' via 'by id' while completely omitting 'accountId', leaving one required parameter undocumented. This is insufficient compensation for the schema gap.

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 (Get) and resource (Ryft payout) and includes the scope 'by id', making the basic operation clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'payouts.list'.

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 like 'payouts.list' or prerequisites such as needing an accountId. It states only what the tool does, not when to invoke it.

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