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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false) establish that this is a non-destructive setup write. Beyond that, the description adds real behavioral value: it names the external dependency (Stripe Connect), describes the return (an onboarding_url for the account's human owner), and notes the withdrawal dependency. Missing only auth/permission notes and any side effects of re-running setup.

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?

Two tightly packed clauses with the purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The return value and workflow hint are appended without bloating the text. Every clause earns its place.

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 six-parameter setup tool with no output schema and 17% schema coverage, the description covers the return value (compensating for the missing output schema) but leaves the parameter set almost entirely unexplained and gives no prerequisites or auth context. It is under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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 only 17% – five of six parameters (email, notify_url, business_name, business_type, notify_method) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description compensates by mentioning the external flow (Stripe Connect) but adds nothing about what any parameter controls or why they are optional. It fails the low-coverage compensation bar.

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: 'Set up where earnings are paid out (Stripe Connect)', which an agent can distinguish from siblings like payout_status (read status) and withdraw (move funds). The additional clause about returning an onboarding_url sharpens the purpose further. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tools, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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?

'only withdrawals need this' implies the workflow condition (run this before/along with withdrawing), which is useful implied guidance. However, it does not name the related siblings (withdraw, payout_status, get_balance) or state triggers/exclusions explicitly. Adequate but inferred rather than spelled out.

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