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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it discloses registies-of-links behavior, returns an onboarding link, mentions payout rates, requires onboarding to be completed, and enumerates prohibited content. This far exceeds a bare 'registers a seller account'.

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 desccription is substantive and structured: function → return value → cost/benefit → constraints. It's slightly long but each sentence contributes material detail, and the most critical actions are front-loaded.

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 an onboarding tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential result (Stripe link), required settlement, fee schedule, and legal constraints. It doesn't describe the exact response format or onboarding-window failure behavior, leaving a minor gap, but is otherwise dense and wholesome.

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 each parameter meaning defined, so the description adds no additional parameter knowledge. It does subtly enrich 'api_ke' context ('linking' a seller) but that's also mirrored in schema, keeping this at the baseline.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource ('Become a seller ... returns a Stripe Connect onboardinng link'), enumerates asset types, and clearly differentiates from sibling sell_data by covering onboarding rather than listing a single item. The purpose is fully legible without opening the schema.

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 explicit routing is the health-data exception, directing users with their own health data to list_health_data. Broader alternetives like sell_data are not explicitly contrasted, so it doesn't fully say when to choose this instead of selling a single asset.

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