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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the description correctly spends its space elsewhere: it names the required scope 'payments:read' (an auth prerequisite not in the schema) and discloses a prompt-injection safety contract for untrusted_fields. That is real behavioral context the annotations don't carry. It stops short of describing default page size or ordering.

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 short sentences, purpose first, then auth, then paging, then the safety caveat. Every sentence carries information and nothing is repeated from the annotations. The final sentence is slightly dense but earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of telling the agent what comes back: a cursor for paging and an untrusted_fields section to surface but not obey. The one gap is the limit parameter and any default page size, for a 2-param tool that leaves a small hole.

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 coverage is 0%, so the schema gives no parameter meaning at all. The description explains the cursor round-trip mechanic ('pass the answer's cursor back as cursor'), which is genuinely useful, but 'limit' is never mentioned and no default or max behavior is stated despite the schema's 1-100 bound.

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 and resource ('List my PayLinks') with an ownership scope ('my') that separates it from get_paylink, create_paylink and cancel_paylink. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the plural-list framing is unambiguous against the singular get tools.

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 word 'my' implies the agent can only enumerate its own PayLinks, and the cursor sentence implies a paging workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to get_paylink for single-item retrieval.

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