get_link

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

The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is a behavioral disclosure, but no additional context is given about response format, errors, or side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and only partially fulfills it.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose, meeting the standard of every sentence earning 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 simple get-by-id tool with one well-documented parameter, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it provides no information about return values, error conditions, or expected output, leaving gaps that are acceptable given the low complexity but not filling them.

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 schema already provides a clear description for the single parameter 'link_id' with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema declares, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('payment link details'), making it evident what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_payment, though the resource is specific enough.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_links or get_payment. The usage context is implied by the name but not articulated, and there are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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