create_paybox_work_link

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those hints by explicitly stating it is a 'pure local calculation' and listing what it does not do, such as persisting the link or interacting with Paybox. This fully discloses the operation's side-effect profile.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The second sentence efficiently enumerates exclusions and usage caveats without unnecessary elaboration.

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 pure local correlation tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete: it explains purpose, side-effect safety, and verification guidance. It does not specify the exact shape/length of the returned link, but since there is no output schema, this is a minor gap rather than a blocker to correct invocation.

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 all four parameters already have detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description reinforces concepts like 'existing', 'opaque', and 'digest-only', but it does not substantially add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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: 'derive and return a digest-only external evidence link' between an AIPOU workReceiptId and a Paybox operation artifact. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling create_technocore_work_link by naming the exact artifact types involved.

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 gives clear when-to-use context: 'Use it for portable correlation only' and instructs verifying artifacts with native systems before relying on the link. It also gives strong when-not-to-use exclusions (does not persist, call Paybox, unlock a wallet, create payment, sign transaction, or change eligibility), though it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool.

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