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

With only readOnlyHint=false in annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and delivers: it returns a URL, tells the agent to send that URL, forbids collecting card numbers, and reveals the price is in the result. The 'Do not collect card numbers' instruction is especially valuable compliance guidance for an AI agent.

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?

Each of the six short sentences earns its place: trigger, return value, action instruction, compliance warning, prerequisite, and result content. The usage trigger is front-loaded and there is zero filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure is covered structurally. The description covers when to call, the prerequisite, what to do with the result, and a critical compliance boundary. Minor gaps such as failure behavior when the preview isn't ready are acceptable for a one-parameter 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 the token parameter already well documented ('Token returned by start_build. Pass the same token...'). The description adds the state precondition that the preview must be ready, which refines the token's expected state, but doesn't explain the parameter itself. Baseline 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 action—creating a Stripe Checkout link—plus its trigger ('when the owner wants the preview site live') and return value ('Returns a Stripe Checkout URL'). The verb and resource are unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling tools' purposes, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 opening sentence gives an explicit trigger condition ('Use this when the owner wants the preview site live'), and 'Preview must be ready' states a prerequisite. It provides clear context but stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it (e.g., the follow-up step of using get_live_site after payment).

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