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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it explicitly discloses that no payment is executed and no money moves, and that the user personally chooses the method and validates in the form (phone code, Tchin PIN, wallet). This is exactly the safety-critical context an agent needs before invoking a payment-adjacent tool.

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 core intent and the no-payment disclaimer are front-loaded, but the closing sentence repeats the opening trigger almost verbatim, adding length without new 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only display tool with no output schema, the description covers what is shown, what is explicitly not done, and who acts next — nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents both accepted forms (full URL or short code abc123). The description adds no format or validation detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: it displays the secure payment form of a tchin.tech/pay link inside the conversation, listing what the form contains (marchand, objet, montant). It is clearly distinct from creation/manipulation siblings like creer_lien_paiement and modifier_lien, since it only renders an existing link.

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?

Explicit trigger conditions are given: call it as soon as the user shares a tchin.tech/pay link, or says they want to pay, settle, or view a Tchin payment. It does not name a specific sibling alternative or an exclusion case, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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