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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a prerequisite ('Requires a Stripe API key to be configured on the server') and clarifies the nature of the response ('returns a simple records array rather than the full structured Stripe response'). The verb 'retrieves' implies a safe read operation, and the lightweight variant distinction adds useful context beyond a generic retrieval description.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then provides usage guidance, sibling comparisons, and a prerequisite. Every sentence adds value, and the layout makes it easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool has only two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers all essential context: what it does, when to use it, how it differs from alternatives, data source, and API key requirement. It fully specifies the query types and introduces the lightweight nature of the response, making it complete for a simple list-retrieval 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. Both 'limit' and 'query_type' are already fully described in the schema, including accepted values for query_type. The description reinforces the query_type meaning by mentioning review of charges, refunds, disputes, and subscriptions, but this is contextual rather than adding new parameter-specific semantics.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves payment and charge records from a Stripe merchant account, using the specific verb 'Retrieves' and identifying the resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool stripe_payments by noting this is a lightweight variant that returns a simple records array, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use stripe_payment_records when an agent needs to review recent charges, refunds, disputes, or subscription payments from a Stripe account.' It also names alternatives: 'Prefer stripe_payments when the agent needs complete Stripe charge objects...' and 'Prefer open_banking_transactions or bank_accounts when the payment data source is a bank account.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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