Get Payment Link Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a 60-day date range constraint but no further behavioral details beyond what annotations cover. It does not contradict annotations.

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 front-loaded with key identifiers and purpose, includes necessary security rules, and is not verbose. However, the security instruction could be streamlined, and the official tag adds minimal value.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (3 required) and an output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints, and security but lacks parameter semantics and pagination behavior. The output schema exists, so return values don't need detailing, but the paramet er info gap reduces completeness.

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 tool description only indirectly mentions date range and merchant_id. It does not explain parameter formats, pagination (page, per_page), or provide any additional meaning beyond the schema field names.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'payment link details' with scope 'within a date range'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_payment_link_by_id by specifying the date range constraint and the returned information.

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?

Explicit usage context is provided: requires merchant_id, maximum 60-day range. Importantly, it states when NOT to call the tool (avoid based on data fields/outputs) and restricts usage to explicit human requests only, providing strong safety guidance.

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