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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds meaningful context: authentication requirement, result ordering, and the fields returned. It does not describe limits or pagination behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 compact at two sentences and front-loads the audience/authentication context before describing the returned items. The field list is useful rather than redundant, though the parameter is omitted entirely.

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 low-complexity listing tool with no output schema, the description explains who can use it, what it returns, and the ordering. The main omission is the behavior of the optional 'limite' parameter, which leaves a small but real gap.

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?

The schema has one optional parameter, 'limite', with bounds 1–50 but 0% schema description coverage. The description never mentions this parameter, its default, or how it affects the number of returned links, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 resource as the connected user's payment links and forms, with a stated ordering ('les plus récents d’abord') and returned fields. It distinguishes this from withdrawal-link and transaction tools by naming payment links and forms, though it does not use an explicit verb like 'list'.

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?

It states that the tool is for the authenticated Tchin user, merchant or individual, and notes that login is requested the first time. This gives useful usage context, but it does not say when to choose this tool over siblings such as mes_liens_retrait or detail_paiement.

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