get_payment_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action ('Get details') without any additional context about response format, error handling, idempotency, or authentication. Lacks the depth expected for a read 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple get-by-ID tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it notes that details of a specific payment link are returned, which aligns with the one required parameter. It does not describe the output structure, but the absence of an output schema and the low complexity make this excusable. Slightly more context about return contents would elevate it to a 5.

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?

The input schema covers the single parameter 'id' with a clear description ('Payment link ID'), providing 100% schema coverage. The description itself adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get details of a specific payment link' uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('payment link'), and scopes it with 'specific', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_payment_links and update_payment_link. It is concise and unambiguous.

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 usage is implied: use this tool to retrieve a single payment link by ID, especially when paired with list_payment_links for enumeration. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternative tools, which limits guidance.

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