Поиск платёжных ссылок

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that pagination is page-based via skipCount and maxResultCount, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it doesn't mention default sort order, maximum result capabilities beyond the schema, or any operational characteristics like rate limits or response fields. For a read-only search tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence delivers a precise operational detail about pagination while contrasting with a sibling tool. Every sentence 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?

With 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat lean. It clarifies pagination but leaves out expected result shape, default result count, and the relationship to potentially overlapping siblings like wata_links_list and wata_acq_link_get. It's sufficient for a simple filtered list call, but the missing context around output and alternatives creates ambiguity.

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 80%, so most parameters are already described in the schema. The tool description adds value specifically for skipCount and maxResultCount, which lack descriptions in the schema, by clarifying they define page-based pagination. This compensates for the low-coverage parameters and raises the score above baseline.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'searches terminal payment links'. The name and title are not just repeated; the description clarifies it's about searching terminal-specific payment linksancing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like wata_links_list or wata_acq_link_get, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the naming convention.

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 only usage guidance is the pagination contrast: 'skipCount and maxResultCount, unlike transaction search where a cursor is used'. This hints at a use case but does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as wata_links_list or wata_acq_link_get, nor does it provide exclusions or selection criteria. The agent is left to guess the appropriate context.

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