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

Beyond annotations, the description clarifies important side effects: 'Does not charge FreedomOS. Does not move money until the payer pays.' It also explains the approval behavior in detail: first use may require approval, from-now-on vs just-once, and when to call without re-asking. This is valuable behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then usage conditions, then approval behavior. Each section earns its place, and the approval paragraph is dense but directly actionable for an agent. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key operational facts: what it returns ('checkout URL'), when it is valid (charges_enabled), side effects (no money movement until payer pays), and approval nuances. An agent has enough to decide and invoke correctly.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no significant parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description does not need to compensate.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Create a Stripe Payment Link so this company can collect a real payment.' It enumerates use cases (sponsor, invoice, one-off) and provides routing context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_checkout_link, though the overall intent is clear.

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 use the tool: 'Use when get_receive_status says charges_enabled (or start_company_receive already finished).' It also gives router-style direction: 'Payment link / sponsor checkout / collect money after Stripe KYC → this tool.' It does not state when-not-to-use or name alternative tools explicitly, but the guidance is strong.

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