Get payment link

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

The description repeats the read-only nature already declared by readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent, and adds that the payment link is 'hosted ZEN'. However, it does not add much behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide, such as not-found behavior, response shape, or open-world fields.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. 'Read-only' is placed first for safety awareness, and the verb, resource, and access pattern are all conveyed efficiently.

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, single-parameter read-only getter, the description is nearly complete. It could mention expected response content or explicit routing to list_payment_links, but the combination of annotations and clear ID-based retrieval makes the tool actionable.

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 identify the parameter as the payment link ID, but the schema already names the parameter 'id' and the tool name already implies the resource, so the added semantic value is modest.

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 a specific verb ('retrieve'), a specific resource ('hosted ZEN payment link'), and the key discriminator ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_payment_links and create_payment_link without needing to inspect schemas.

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 gives clear context: this is for fetching a single payment link by its ID, and it is read-only. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the emphasis on 'by ID' makes the intended use obvious relative to listing or creating payment links.

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