Платёжные ссылки

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, how pagination works, or any side effects. The description only states a condition (created links) but not the behavior.

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?

While the one-sentence description is brief, it is not appropriately concise because it omits essential information. It under-specifies the tool's purpose, making it less effective than a longer description with clear action and scope.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It provides no context about what the tool returns, how to use parameters, or when to invoke it, leaving an agent unable to correctly select and call the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 'Созданные платёжные ссылки мерчанта' (Created payment links of the merchant) is a noun phrase without a verb, leaving the action ambiguous. It does not state whether this tool lists, retrieves, or counts links. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like wata_link_get or wata_acq_links_find, which also deal with links.

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 such as wata_link_get (for individual links) or wata_acq_links_find (for acquiring links). There is no mention of pagination, filtering context, or typical use cases.

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