Australia Payments (Stripe — cards / Apple Pay)

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

Annotations already indicate destructive (destructiveHint=true) and non-read-only behavior. The description adds value by detailing the two cancellation modes (immediate vs. end of period), including the fairness implication, which goes beyond the structured data. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences: one for purpose, one for the two modes. Extremely concise with no unnecessary words or repetition. Every sentence 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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects (when cancellation takes effect, immediate option). It does not describe return values or side effects, but the operation is straightforward and the description is adequate.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the 'fair to the buyer' nuance for immediate, and the schema already explains the id format and immediate default. The description's additional value is marginal but present.

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 states the tool cancels a subscription and distinguishes between two modes (immediate vs. end of period). It is specific about the resource (subscription) and the action (cancel), differentiating from siblings like query_subscription (read-only) and refund_payment (different operation).

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 explains when to use immediate=true vs. false (default fair to buyer), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare with sibling tools like refund_payment or query_subscription, missing an opportunity to guide selection among alternatives.

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

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations, including the money flow (buyer→Stripe→merchant, no fund touching), automatic payment completion, authentication via header, and side effects of optional parameters (invoice fee, tax ID collection). No contradictions with annotations.

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 relatively concise and front-loaded with core purpose, but it is a single dense paragraph. Slight improvement could be gained by structuring with bullet points or separating workflow from optional features, though current form is not overly verbose.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return (hosted checkout URL) and covers most critical aspects: input constraints, authentication, optional features with their impacts. It lacks explicit mention of error handling or rate limits, but for a payment link creation tool, the provided information is fairly 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?

All 6 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), and the description adds meaningful context: explains amount_aud constraints (decimals, min 0.5), description character limit, and behavior of optional parameters like issue_invoice and collect_tax_id, enhancing understanding beyond schema.

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 states the tool creates a payment link in AUD for Australia via Stripe Checkout Sessions, specifying the resource, action, currency, and region. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'cancel_subscription' and 'refund_payment' by focusing on payment link creation.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (creating a payment link for buyer payment), prerequisites (credentials via header), and optional features (issue_invoice, collect_tax_id). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparisons with siblings like 'create_subscription_link'.

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

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

Discloses creation of a checkout link (not a subscription), automatic recurring charges, and policy checks. No contradiction with annotations; adds beyond schema.

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?

3 sentences, front-loaded with core action, no fluff. Every sentence adds relevant context.

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?

Covers purpose and behavior well but lacks explicit mention of return value (the generated URL). Agents may need to know what the tool returns.

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 has 100% coverage; description reinforces interval default and currency unit. Provides context on per-period amount and policy guardrails, adding value.

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 clearly states it creates a recurring subscription checkout link via Stripe, specifying verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like create_payment_link for one-time payments.

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?

Implicitly indicates usage for recurring billing; mentions buyer flow and owner policy guardrails. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but sibling context helps.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds value by specifying that it queries Stripe directly in real-time and details the paid field and conditional invoice fields. It does not contradict annotations.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, then adds behavioral details, and ends with conditional output info. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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?

Given the single parameter, no output schema, and annotations, the description is complete. It explains the key output fields (paid, invoice_url, invoice_pdf) and the real-time nature, which is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 a single parameter session_id fully described. The description merely echoes the schema's mention of create_payment_link, adding no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides.

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 states the verb 'Check whether' and the resource 'Australia payment', and ties it to the sibling tool create_payment_link. It distinguishes from other tools like refund_payment and create_subscription_link by focusing on status checking.

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 indicates when to use it (after creating a payment link) and notes that no webhook is needed, implying a pull-based approach. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or provide direct alternatives, though the context is clear.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds value by explaining the meaning of 'active=true' and the status 'NOT_SUBSCRIBED_YET', which clarifies the tool's behavior beyond the annotations.

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 very concise with two sentences, no filler, and the key action is front-loaded. Every sentence adds necessary information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one param, read-only), the description covers the main purpose, accepted IDs, and output interpretation. However, it lacks information on error conditions or what happens if the ID is invalid, which would be helpful for completeness.

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 description repeats the parameter details. It adds some context about accepted ID formats and status mapping, but these are not strictly param semantics; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Check a subscription' with a clear verb and resource, and it specifies that it's for subscriptions created by 'create_subscription_link'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_subscription, refund_payment, and query_payment_status.

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 implies usage for checking subscriptions created via create_subscription_link, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives like cancel_subscription for cancellation.

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

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint true), the description adds key behavioral context: refunds respect the same owner policy guardrails (x-agentpay-max-amount) and the amount is checked before gateway interaction. It also notes that partial refund is conditional ('where supported'). This provides valuable transparency beyond the structured annotations.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence clearly states the primary action, and the second adds critical guardrail information. No unnecessary words, and the structure is efficient.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main action, partial refund behavior, and guardrails. It could mention that the payment must be in a paid state, but that is implied by 'paid payment'. The description is reasonably complete given 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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The description reinforces the optional 'amount' for partial refunds and adds the caveat 'where supported', which is not in the schema. Thus it adds meaningful context beyond the schema definitions.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Refund a paid payment' with the verb 'refund' and resource 'paid payment'. It distinguishes it from siblings by referencing 'created by create_payment_link', making it distinct from create_payment_link and query_payment_status.

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 specifies when to use the tool (after payment is paid, via create_payment_link) and mentions partial refund capability. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context is clear given the siblings are not for refunds.

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