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

Although annotations already declare destructiveHint and openWorldHint, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it confirms payment with Stripe, advances the formation to filing on success, and instructs not to proceed or represent success if the verification fails. This goes beyond the structured annotations and clarifies the tool's real-world side effect.

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?

The description is made of five short, purposeful sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action, the default behavior, the trigger condition, the verification guarantee, and the failure protocol. It is front-loaded with the core function and wastes no words.

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?

With an output schema present, the return values are already documented. The description covers the decision-relevant semantics: when to call, what success does, what failure means, and how to respond. The only notable gap is the unexplained optional stripeSessionId parameter, which prevents a perfect score.

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 50%, and the description does not explain the role of stripeSessionId at all. formationId is obvious from the context, but an agent is left guessing whether stripeSessionId is required for a specific Stripe session or only needed in certain flows. The description provides no parameter-level detail to compensate for the schema's gaps.

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 and resource: 'Verifies with Stripe that payment actually completed and, on success, advances the formation to filing.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling formation tools like formation_get_payment_link or formation_purchase_formation, and from generic polling tools such as formation_sweep_formation_order_status.

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 explicitly says when to call it ('Only call this if the user explicitly returns and says they have paid'), when not to call it ('Usually unnecessary — payment auto-confirms via webhook'), and what not to do on failure. It also warns that a user's claim of payment is not proof, which is strong, direct usage guidance.

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