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

Annotations already signal non-read-only and destructive/approval-worthy behavior; the description adds valuable context by explaining the write-tier approval flow, from-now-on vs just-once approval, and the 'card is the yes — do not re-ask' instruction. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and does not contradict them.

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 the core action and use conditions, and each paragraph has a distinct role: action/use, routing, approval. It is slightly redundant because the routing paragraph repeats the no-company-yet condition from the first paragraph, but overall it is well organized and appropriately sized.

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 simple, zero-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the return value, the exact eligibility condition, the parameters, what not to pass, the post-payment follow-up tools, and the approval behavior. No additional information is needed to invoke it 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?

The schema already covers all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by grouping holdco_name, founder_why, and website as the short setup interview and explicitly ruling out price, plan, or email parameters, which is useful guidance beyond the schema.

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 first sentence names the exact action (return a Stripe checkout link), the product (FreedomOS Solo) and price, and identifies the buyer as the signed-in person. It also differentiates the tool from create_company and explicitly states it does not take price, plan, or email, which prevents mis-selection.

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 explicit when-to-use conditions: no business yet and not subscribed. It also names alternatives and their contexts: create_company after payment or for existing subscribers, and get_my_companies after payment. The routing paragraph reinforces the decision rule and names the sibling it is not.

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