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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Check' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about auth requirements, whether the seller must already be onboarded, what status values are returned, or how stale the status might be.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero wasted words. Nothing could be trimmed without losing 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what it checks and what identifier it needs. It falls short on the shape of the returned status and any behavioral caveats an agent would want before calling it.

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?

There is a single parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema adds nothing. The description compensates partially by explaining where seller_id comes from (register_seller), but gives no format, type, or validation guidance beyond that.

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 (Check) and resource (Stripe onboarding status), plus the exact identifier type it operates on (seller_id). It is clearly distinct from adjacent tools like renew_seller_onboarding, though it does not explicitly name that sibling as an alternative.

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 phrase 'seller_id returned by register_seller' implies the call follows a registration step, which is useful implicit sequencing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer renew_seller_onboarding, and no stated preconditions.

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