Get Payment Link Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the API endpoint path, which provides some context, but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or response behavior beyond the basic operation.

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?

One concise sentence containing the action, resource, and endpoint. No redundant phrasing, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not describe the response format or possible status values. It also omits how to obtain the token and paymentId (e.g., from start_payment_link), though the endpoint gives some context. For a simple status-check tool this is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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%, and the description does not explain token or paymentId beyond the endpoint template. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the meaning of 'session' and the source of these identifiers are left for the agent to infer.

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 it queries the charge status of a payment link ('Consulta status de cobrança de payment link') and provides the endpoint. It distinguishes from the sibling get_payment_link by focusing on payment/charge status, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus related tools like get_payment_link or get_transaction. It does not mention prerequisites, session context, or how this status check fits into a broader workflow.

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