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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, disclosing that payment is handled by Paddle in the browser, warning never to share card details, and enumerating possible return states such as already_free, already_owned, checkout_not_live, and needs_input. It also notes the authentication requirement (signed in to FindAgent), which is useful behavior context.

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?

Although the description is a single dense paragraph, every sentence contributes distinct information: the main purpose, return statuses, browser/payment behavior, security warning, follow-up action, and error case. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core action, and nothing is redundant or filler.

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 complexity, one required parameter, an output schema, and a large sibling set, the description is complete. It covers when to use it, what it returns, how payment works, security constraints, next steps after purchase, and fallback behavior for invalid slugs, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it 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?

The input schema already fully documents the slug parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by specifying that an unknown or unpublished slug yields a needs_input result, and clarifies the slug should come from findagent_browse_agents, which enriches the schema's plain type description.

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 a specific verb and resource: it gets a browser checkout link to purchase a paid FindAgent agent. It clearly distinguishes itself from related tools like findagent_add_connector and findagent_browse_agents by naming exactly what it returns and when it applies.

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?

Usage is explicitly conditional: free agents route to findagent_add_connector, already-owned agents return already_owned, and unknown slugs point back to findagent_browse_agents. It also states what to do after purchase settles, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool should be invoked.

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