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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: authentication is required (first-time login), fees are borne by the client, and the link itself collects no money. It also discloses the return artifact, the shareable URL. It does not say whether repeated calls create duplicate links (relevant given idempotentHint=false) or whether links expire.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying distinct information (audience/auth, action, amount modes, fee/custody disclaimer). The opening clause about connection is slightly front-loaded over the action, but nothing is redundant.

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 compensates by stating that a URL (https://tchin.tech/pay/…) is returned and meant to be shared. Combined with full annotation and schema coverage, an agent has what it needs, with only lifecycle questions (expiry, duplicates) left open.

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%, so the schema already documents titre, montant, moyens, test and description. The description's note that an omitted montant produces a free-amount link and that amounts are in F CFA largely repeats the schema's own wording, adding little beyond it.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Crée un lien de paiement Tchin au nom du marchand connecté') and explicitly disclaims what it does not do ('N'encaisse rien par lui-même'), which separates it from the payout/transfer siblings. It never names a sibling tool, so differentiation is functional rather than explicit.

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?

Usage context is implied — a merchant wants an address to share with clients, and 'montant omis' yields a free-amount link. However, no alternative is named (e.g. creer_lien_retrait, creer_formulaire, mes_liens), and there is no explicit when-not guidance, so the agent must infer the routing.

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