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

The description discloses concrete side effects: creation of an external Stripe Express Connected Account, registration of a 4-character ledger code, and triggering an onboarding URL. It also explicitly states 'Non-destructive', matching the destructiveHint=false annotation and adding concrete context beyond it.

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 tightly structured with labeled sections (PURPOSE, WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, SIDE EFFECTS) and contains zero filler. Every sentence contributes decision-relevant information, and key constraints are 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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, output schema present, annotations available, 5 siblings), the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, when not to use it, and what side effects occur. With an output schema present, return-value details are not needed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (country, entity_name, contact_email). The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden.

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 ('Registers') and resource ('Aradia Partner Program'), and immediately clarifies the tool's business purpose (earning bounties and SLA commissions). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming execute_procurement_order and query_partner_stats in the WHEN NOT TO USE section.

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?

Provides explicit WHEN TO USE ('Call ONCE when...') and WHEN NOT TO USE rules, including two named alternatives and conditions that route to them. An agent can decide to call this tool without any inferential gap.

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