elba_document_link

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It adds real behavioral context — the link is public, renders/ downloads as PDF, QR payment is invoice-only, and the link is persisted in the journal — but it omits link lifetime/expiration, whether generating a link is a mutating/publishing side effect, and any auth requirements.

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 core definition is front-loaded in the first clause, and parameter semantics follow compactly. The final sentence ('Ссылка на счёт из журнала сохраняется в журнале') is somewhat circular and adds little beyond the journal-persistence impression already given.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should describe the return value (a URL string) and link properties such as expiry or revocation, which it does not. It is adequate for calling the tool — document_id plus two booleans — but leaves behavioral gaps an agent would want.

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. It does explain with_signatures (stamp and signature) and qr_payment (QR payment, invoices only), which is more than the schema offers, but document_id — the sole required parameter — is left completely unexplained.

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 the resource (a public link to an invoice/act that the client opens and downloads as PDF), so an agent can tell what the tool produces. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb (create/generate), and it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling elba_link_publish, which sounds closely related.

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 only implied: the description says the link is sent to the client and that qr_payment is only valid for invoices, which gives a useful eligibility rule. It never states when to choose this over elba_link_publish or elba_get_bill, nor any prerequisites, so an agent must infer the routing.

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