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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description's 'Read-only.' is largely redundant. What it does add beyond annotations is substantive: the fixed 90-day lookback window, that candidates are ranked by evidence per setup choice, that a suggested start date accounts for prior connector bookings, and that example invoices are returned without customer data. Rate limits, cost, and pagination are not disclosed.

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 core subject is front-loaded, but the whole definition is a single ~110-word run-on sentence with a long parenthetical list, which makes it hard to scan. The information is useful, yet the comma-spliced enumeration could be restructured into short bullets without losing content.

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 no output schema, the description carries the job of describing the return payload, and it does so thoroughly enough that an agent knows what to expect. For a complex aggregation tool it is nearly complete; the missing pieces are how large the response may be and how it behaves when no Stripe account is connected.

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 company, products, and stripe_account are already documented, including their optionality. The description adds only indirect meaning (it mentions example invoices per product, tying loosely to the products parameter) and never explains the multi-company or multi-Stripe-account selection behavior in prose. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter 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 names a specific verb and resource (get the payout setup for the Stripe account connected on the Caribooks Payouts page) and enumerates the returned content exhaustively: 90-day sales, balance, QuickBooks candidates ranked by evidence, gaps, warnings, suggested start date, example invoices, and existing payouts. That distinguishes it from the general reporting siblings. It does not, however, contrast itself with the two nearest siblings, save_payout_setup and get_payout_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?

Usage is only implied: the closing 'Read-only.' plus the presence of save_payout_setup signals this is the preview step before committing a setup. There is no explicit statement of when to call it, no prerequisites (e.g. a Stripe account must already be connected), and no exclusion of alternatives such as get_payout_status.

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