Create bePaid payment link

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the operation mints a checkout token and returns a URL, and crucially that links are test payments unless BEPAID_TEST_MODE=false — non-obvious context that affects how the agent interprets results. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the mode caveat second. Nothing redundant with the title or schema.

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 mutation tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and openWorld behavior, the description is thin: it does cover the return value (URL), which is the main gap left by the absent output schema, but ignores the customer/expiry/currency surface entirely. Adequate minimum, clear gaps remain.

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 only 50% across 10 parameters, so the description should compensate more than it does. It clarifies the interplay between the `test` flag and server test mode, which is valuable, but says nothing about currency, expiry, customer fields, or require_customer_fields. Baseline 3 for partial compensation.

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 specific verb and resource ('Creates a one-off bePaid payment page (checkout token)') and even names the returned artifact ('returns its URL'). This cleanly separates it from the read-only sibling tools (list/get/export transactions), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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 is implied by the purpose — one-off payment collection — but the description never states when to reach for this versus the transaction-lookup siblings, nor any prerequisites (merchant account, credentials). The test-mode sentence is a useful contextual hint rather than explicit routing guidance.

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