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

The description explicitly states the operation is read-only and reinforces the idempotent, non-destructive intent already present in the annotations. It also sets expectations about the external human step, making side effects clear.

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 compact and free of unnecessary detail, using two short sentences to communicate the operation, the external dependency, and the polling condition.

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?

The description provides the key field to monitor (charges_enabled) and the condition for proceeding, which is sufficient for the intended polling use case. It does not fully describe the output shape because there is no output schema, but the essential semantics are present.

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?

There are no parameters and the input schema is fully covered by the empty parameter list, so there is no additional parameter detail the description could add; this receives the baseline score per the rubric.

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 identifies the tool as a read-only operation and names the exact resource: Stripe Connect onboarding status. It distinguishes itself from seller management tools by focusing specifically on onboarding/charges_enabled state.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: agents should wait on this read until charges_enabled becomes true before listing. It also clarifies that Stripe Express onboarding itself is a human-driven session, so agents should not attempt to automate it.

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