List payment links

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

The description echoes the readOnlyHint annotation and adds 'hosted ZEN' as a scoping detail. It does not disclose pagination, filtering, rate limits, or response behavior, but annotations already cover the read-only safety profile, so this is acceptable but not rich.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the operation and read-only nature 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 list operation with all optional parameters, an agent can safely call it with no arguments. However, the description does not explain filtering or pagination semantics, and there is no output schema to clarify return shape, leaving noticeable gaps.

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%, and the description does not explain page, limit, or status. The parameter names hint at pagination and filtering, but status values and pagination behavior are left entirely to inference.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'list hosted ZEN payment links.' It is clear enough to distinguish from get_payment_link (single link) and list_payment_methods (different resource), though it does not explicitly draw those contrasts.

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 intended use is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over get_payment_link or create_payment_link. The read-only label helps with safety, not with tool selection.

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