payway_get_payment_link_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement (PAYWAY_RSA_PUBLIC_KEY) and implies a read-only operation ('Get details/status'), but does not describe the return format, error behavior, or whether any side effects occur. The key requirement is useful, but the rest is minimal.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded ('Get details/status'), and the key requirement is a necessary caveat placed second. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what is required to call it. The lack of an output schema means the agent won't know the exact shape of the returned details/status, but the tool is simple and the description provides enough for correct invocation.

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 100%; the 'id' parameter is already documented as the payment link ID returned by payway_create_payment_link. The description's mention of 'previously created payment link' aligns with this but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('details/status of a previously created payment link'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like payway_create_payment_link (creation) and payway_get_transaction_details (transactions), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: use it for payment links that have already been created, and it notes the required PAYWAY_RSA_PUBLIC_KEY. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource type and 'previously created' condition give an agent enough signal to choose this over transaction-related tools.

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