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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the previous link is single-use and expirable, but says nothing about auth/permission requirements, whether a fresh link invalidates prior ones, idempotency, or what the caller receives back.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The condition is stated after the action, and every word carries 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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is too thin. It omits permission requirements, return value (presumably a URL), and error behavior for invalid or already-onboarded sellers.

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 0% for the single parameter (seller_id), and the description does not explain its format, origin, or constraints. It fails to compensate for the documentation gap, offering no meaning beyond the parameter name.

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?

Specific verb (Create) plus resource (fresh Stripe onboarding link) with the qualifying condition 'if the previous single-use link expired.' This clearly separates it from siblings like register_seller or create_stripe_checkout, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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 states the trigger condition for calling it (an expired single-use onboarding link), which is a clear context for use. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., initial onboarding via register_seller) or stating when not to call it.

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