Get Yolfi Paylink

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds the context that details are 'private', implying access control considerations, but does not elaborate further on behavioral traits such as rate limits or required permissions. It adds minimal value beyond annotations.

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 sentence of 13 words, front-loading the action and identifier, and then listing three use cases. Every word serves a purpose; there is no fluff. It is maximally concise while still providing essential context.

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 retrieval tool with one well-described parameter and safety annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, what input to provide, and when to use it. There is no output schema, so the agent might need to infer the return format, but the use cases given help set expectations. It is largely complete for its complexity level.

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 covers the single parameter 'id' with 100% description coverage, stating it is a Yolfi paylink ID from other tools. The tool description does not add extra semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Given the full schema coverage, a 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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('private paylink details'), and specifies the identifier ('by ID'). It also lists three distinct use cases (verification, checkout wiring, duplicate detection), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like yolfi_paylinks_list (list all) and yolfi_paylinks_create (create new).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: for verification, checkout wiring, or duplicate detection. This provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling tools are listed separately. The guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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