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

Annotations already flag this as non-read-only and open-world, but the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the session is live on Stripe, the agent must not touch payment data, and the URL must be handed to the human. This clarifies real-world side effects and safety boundaries.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the essential action and output, the second covers workflow, safety, and usage timing. It is tightly structured with the most important information front-loaded.

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 Stripe checkout tool with external side effects, the description captures the essential operational details: what it creates, what it returns, who should complete the payment, what the agent must not do, and when to invoke it. The schema handles parameter specifics, so nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the product enum and quantity field. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond implying the product is an AcuiQ product; the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb ('Create'), a specific resource ('a Stripe Checkout session'), and a concrete deliverable ('return its URL'). This makes it instantly distinguishable from the sibling read/search tools like get_point or search_symptoms.

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 gives clear usage context: call it when the person has said they want to buy, not to look up a price. It also provides an implicit alternative (the get/search siblings) by saying when not to use this tool, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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