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

Beyond the annotations, the description explicitly warns 'MONEY: real and irreversible' and mentions atomicity, which enriches the safety profile. The '[demo: deshabilitada]' note adds environmental context. No contradictions with annotations.

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 fairly concise at two sentences, but the leading '[demo: deshabilitada]' creates a slightly awkward structure and may distract from the main purpose. Still, every phrase carries useful information.

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 tool has no output schema, yet the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the payment link URL) or any prerequisites like MercadoPago connection or existing catalog products. This leaves an important gap for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 100%, and the schema already documents each parameter adequately. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the 'catalog-tied' context, so it does not compensate or elaborate beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies the verb (creates), the specific resource (tracked MercadoPago payment link), and the scope (catalog-tied cobro), while detailing the atomic recording of Sale + Invoice + PaymentIntent and generation of a Checkout Pro link. This differentiates it from siblings like open_payment_link_wizard or register_sale.

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 a clear context: it's for catalog-tied cobros that require real payment links with tracking, and emphasizes that money is real and irreversible. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity versus open_payment_link_wizard.

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