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

Goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the idempotency-key safety guarantee (Stripe never pays twice), that no new approval is needed, and the 409/503/404/403 conditions with their meaning. It also states the required credential scope and the claimed-workspace requirement.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its scope, then the safety rationale, then the failure conditions. Despite its length, every sentence carries needed information for correct invocation.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the critical context: idempotency behavior, prerequisite approvals, HTTP error meanings, auth scope, and workspace-claim requirement.

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% and the run_id description already tells the agent where to obtain the value. The prose implies the run must be a partial run with retryable transfers, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; 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?

States a specific verb and resource: re-send the transfers of a partial payout run that are due for a retry. It clearly distinguishes itself from request_payout_run (new run) and approve_payout_run (approval), which are the closest siblings.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (after network error, timeout, Stripe outage) and when not to (a transfer that failed for good requires a new run once the cause is fixed). Alternatives and prerequisites are named.

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