Платёжная ссылка по идентификатору

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the returned link is complete and includes the digitalGood block, which goes beyond what the name alone implies. However, it does not mention authentication, error cases, or any other behavioral constraints, leaving some gaps typical of a read operation.

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, compact sentence that immediately states the main action and the key differentiator. There is no redundant wording, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 getter with one well-documented parametercars, the description is nearly complete: it explains the main return value and the distinctive digitalGood block. It does not cover error behavior or detailed response structure, but these are less critical for this low-complexity tool.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', which is described as the UUID of the payment link. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, 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 states a specific verb ('Возвращает'), a clear resource ('ссылку'), and adds a distinctive detail: the full link includes the digitalGood block, which search results omit. It clearly identifies the tool's purpose of fetching a complete payment link by ID, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named sibling wata_link_get.

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 phrase 'которого нет в результатах поиска' implies a key usage scenario: use this tool when the full link data, including digitalGood, is needed beyond what search/list endpoints return. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to make a reasonable selection.

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