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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: it returns the same link while the order is open and never issues a second payable link. This clarifies side-effect expectations well, though it does not discuss potential edge cases like what happens when a link is truly expired.

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?

Two sentences convey the trigger condition, the result, the key behavioral constraint, the required parameter, and an exclusion. Every clause earns its place and the most important guidance is front-loaded.

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 tool with an output schema, the description fully covers when to call it, what it returns, and what it avoids doing. The only slight gap is order_ref provenance, but the sibling context and output schema make this tool sufficiently self-contained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does say 'Needs the order_ref' and implies it identifies the order, but it does not explain the format, origin, or how the agent should obtain a valid order_ref. The property name is self-explanatory, but the description adds only marginal semantic value 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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the payable link for an order on pinflower.cz. It also distinguishes itself from pinflower_create_order by clarifying it does not create a second payable link, which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 says when to use it (buyer has not paid and the original link expired or got lost) and when not to use it (paid or cancelled orders). This gives clear routing guidance without needing to inspect sibling tools.

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