List payment links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing result ordering ('Newest first') and the cursor round-trip contract, which an agent cannot infer from annotations. It stops short of noting default page size or whether filters combine.

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 short sentences, ordering and pagination front-loaded, zero filler. The opening 'List payment links.' is a near-verbatim restatement of the title, which is the only wasted line.

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 zero-required-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers pagination and ordering but leaves the agent guessing about the returned object shape and filter behavior. Nothing is wrong, but a bit more on what a page contains and how filters interact would make it complete.

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 coverage is 75%, so most parameters are self-documenting. The description only touches `cursor`/`next_cursor`, and that largely restates the schema's own 'next_cursor from the previous page'. The `active` filter and the `price` filter's semantics (e.g., whether it narrows to links for a single price) get no explanation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List payment links') that clearly contrasts with the create_payment_link and update_payment_link siblings. It adds the ordering semantics ('Newest first'), but does not explicitly differentiate itself from other list_* siblings or state scope (all links vs. filtered).

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 gives a concrete pagination protocol (pass `next_cursor` back as `cursor`), which is genuinely actionable, but it never says when to use this tool versus the other listing tools or what conditions make a call appropriate. Usage is implied by the name rather than stated.

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