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

Annotations cover the safety profile (write but non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: the call produces an onboarding LINK (not the payout itself) and that funds route to the human principal, which is material for a money-related tool. It omits prerequisites such as a mandate and whether links expire.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the role qualifier and with zero filler. The final clause ('Payouts go straight to them') is slightly loose in referent but is the most decision-relevant fact, so it 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 money-routing tool with no output schema and non-idempotent semantics, the description is adequate but thin: it never says what the returned link is for, whether the human must complete it, whether the call is repeatable, or what prerequisites (e.g. a mandate) apply.

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?

Only one parameter, country, and its schema description already carries the two-letter ISO format and an example at 100% coverage. The prose adds nothing about the parameter, but per the high-coverage baseline the schema doing the work yields a 3.

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+resource ('get a Stripe onboarding link') and scopes it to the Seller role, so the agent knows this is a payout-onboarding step rather than a listing/market action. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as start_earning, set_mandate, or mandate_status, which also touch earning/payout setup.

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 'Seller:' prefix implies the actor and situation (a seller setting up payouts for their human principal), which is useful context. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so routing between this and start_earning/set_mandate is left to inference.

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