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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it states Stripe verifies the legal representative and bank payout account, discloses the 75/25 payout split with HOBO's separate transfer, and confirms no splitter deployment is required. It omits what happens after the call (return value/next steps) and whether the agent must already be registered, so it is strong but incomplete.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the following sentences each add distinct information (verification, economics, absence of manual setup). Slightly verbose on the economics but no filler sentences that could be dropped outright.

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 multi-param creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the workflow and verification economics but leaves preconditions (must the agent already be registered?), per-parameter expectations, and post-call behavior undefined. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 25% (only 'country' is documented), and the description explains none of the parameters. Three required fields – display_name, contact_email, crypto_payout_address – get no semantic guidance anywhere, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Start self-service seller registration') and adds the self-service/no-invitation framing that separates it from a manual onboarding flow. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like renew_seller_onboarding or register_agent, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

'Start self-service seller registration' and 'No manual invitation or splitter deployment is needed' imply the usage context (self-onboarding instead of an invited flow), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative for cases like renewing or checking seller status.

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