Stream

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'optional filters' but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (implied by page/limit parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'List all' means in practice (e.g., completeness guarantees). The status values are listed, but no context about what they represent or system behavior is given.

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 appropriately brief with two sentences: a clear purpose statement followed by specific parameter details. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the second sentence could be more integrated (e.g., 'Filter by status using statuses parameter, which accepts...') for better flow.

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?

Given 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete—it only documents one parameter's values. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but behavioral aspects like pagination, filtering logic, and error conditions remain unaddressed. For a list tool with multiple filters, more context would be helpful.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but only partially does. It clarifies that 'statuses' can include specific values (INACTIVE, ACTIVE, COMPLETED), adding meaning beyond the schema's generic string array. However, it doesn't explain the other 4 parameters (page, limit, from_date, to_date), leaving their purpose and format undocumented. The baseline would be lower without the status clarification.

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 states the verb ('List') and resource ('payment links'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_payment_link' (singular retrieval) by indicating it returns multiple items with filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'list_coupons' or 'list_invoices' beyond the resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or compare with sibling tools like 'get_payment_link' for single retrieval or 'list_payments' for different resource types. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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