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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — that market and category get written into the sign-up link's tracking tags — but says nothing about the nature or format of the returned onboarding content.

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?

It is a single dense sentence with a colon-introduced list, front-loaded with the target audience. It stays short, but the embedded five-item enumeration of topics makes it read as a content inventory rather than a crisp statement of action, and there is no explicit subject-verb construction.

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?

With no output schema, the description does enumerate what an agent gets back (programme types, fulfilment options, controls/visibility, market coverage, sign-up link), which is the right move. It still omits how the content is structured or any prerequisite for obtaining a sign-up link, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal meaning by explaining that supplied market/category values reappear as tracking tags on the generated link, but it does not clarify format expectations beyond what the schema states.

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 enumerates the topics the tool answers (programme kinds, fulfilment options, merchant controls, market coverage, sign-up link) but never names a verb or states plainly that it returns onboarding information. An agent can infer the resource is merchant onboarding and can roughly distinguish it from creator_onboarding, but the action is only implied.

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?

It names the audience/condition for use ('For a business that sells a subscription and wants it carried by card, loyalty, employee-benefits, telco or creator programmes'), which implies when to call it. However it offers no when-not guidance and never names a sibling (e.g. creator_onboarding) to route between, leaving the choice to inference.

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