payment_link_methods

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'List available payment methods' without disclosing any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or expected outcome. This lack of detail limits the agent's understanding of side effects or constraints.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, with no filler or redundant information.

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 the absence of parameters and output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. However, it does not specify the format or scope of the returned methods. A slightly fuller description could improve completeness, but it is adequate for a simple list tool.

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?

There are no parameters in the schema, so schema description coverage is effectively 100%. Per guidelines, with 0 parameters the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific info, but none is needed.

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 'List available payment methods for payment links' uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource 'available payment methods for payment links'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like payment_link_create or payment_link_list by focusing on methods rather than creating or listing payment links.

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 does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context where this tool is preferred. The intended use case (e.g., before creating a payment link) is only implied by the name.

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