Детали платёжной ссылки

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says that the tool returns a 'карточка' (card/details) by identifier, which adds little beyond the title. It does not mention response shape, behavior for missing or invalid IDs, or any other side effects or requirements.

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 very concise—one short sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the resource and lookup method. It loses a point only because it is so terse that it does not convey more than the title already does.

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 one-parameter getter, the description is minimally sufficient: an agent knows to pass a link identifier and expect details. However, there is no output schema, no mention of possible errors, return structure, or how this getter relates to the many link-related sibling tools, leaving notable gaps.

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 input schema already documents the single id parameter with 100% coverage and a clear description ('Идентификатор ссылки'). The tool description merely restates the identifier concept and does not add new semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names the resource (payment link) and the lookup criterion (identifier), and implies a read action returning details. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar sibling tools like wata_acq_link_get or wata_links_list, so it falls short of a 5.

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 given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wata_links_list, wata_acq_link_get, or wata_link_create. The context in which this getter is preferred is left entirely to inference.

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