get_payment_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on a substantial information burden. It explains link permanence, reusability, the lack of need for an API key or WhiteIntel account, and the ability to bind to a company via client_reference_id. It also discloses the exact response tier structure and its limitation (no Premium link).

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 dense and front-loaded, using bolding and uppercase for emphasis. While it's long, every sentence provides necessary context for a financial transaction tool. The most critical distinguishing points (permanent, shareable) appear first.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It covers purpose, usage restrictions, behavioral traits, pricing structure, and limitations. It fully compensates for the absence of structured annotations and output schema.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is minimal and 100% covered. The description even adds the optional client_reference_id query parameter context, though that isn't an explicit input. Given 0 params, baseline is 4, but the detailed context around query string binding elevates this to 5.

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 this as the tool for permanent, shareable Stripe payment links for one-off dossiers. It emphasizes the distinction from buy_dossier (single-use, 24h expiry), which is the key to its purpose, explicitly naming the sibling tool to prevent confusion.

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 contrasts with buy_dossier, stating 'use this INSTEAD of buy_dossier whenever you need something you can HAND TO A HUMAN.' It also explains when buy_dossier is required (for Premium), thereby offering clear alternatives and exclusions.

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