fetch_payment_links

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

The description discloses that the tool returns both active and expired links, lists the fields in each link entry, and specifies the return type (list or error). With no annotations, it carries the burden well, though it could mention that it's a read-only operation explicitly.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear opening sentence, bullet points listing return fields, and a return type specification. No unnecessary words.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return content comprehensively, including fields and error case. It could mention pagination, but 'all payment links' implies complete list. Adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description provides no parameter info, but none is needed. Baseline score of 4 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 clearly states the tool retrieves all payment links created by the merchant, including both active and expired. It distinguishes from siblings: create_payment_link creates links, fetch_transactions_for_link fetches transactions for a specific link.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for listing all links, but lacks explicit guidance or exclusions. Sibling tool names provide context, but the description should clarify.

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