list_payment_links

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the tool's name without explaining scope, pagination, ordering, or response details. The 'existing' qualifier is ambiguous and lacks actionable context for an agent.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the purpose without unnecessary detail, which is ideal for a low-complexity tool.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, but the description is still sparse. It does not mention whether the list is paginated, filtered by status, or includes any default behavior, leaving the agent to infer details from the sibling context. However, for a basic list operation, the core purpose is clear.

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 only parameter 'limit' is fully described in the schema with 'Limit number of results', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the schema already documents it, but it also doesn't clarify how limit affects results (e.g., default, max).

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 the action (List) and the resource (payment links), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_payment_link, create_payment_link, and list_payment_intents. The verb is specific and matches the tool name's intent.

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 implies that this tool is for fetching existing payment links, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over get_payment_link (to retrieve a single link) or list_payment_intents (to list intents instead). It is a minimal list operation with no mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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