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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It does, by revealing the underlying Stripe KYC / charges_enabled source and the branching behavior based on the result.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose comes first, followed by usage conditions and explicit routing. The 'Routing' line adds disambiguation value rather than repeating existing content, so no sentence is wasted.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations and clear routing guidance, this description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool checks, when to use it, what to do with the result, and which sibling to avoid.

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 describes companyId with 100% coverage, including the membership requirement. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but with only one fully documented parameter, the schema carries the burden; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it tells the agent to check whether a company can receive money via Stripe charges_enabled. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from get_stripe_metrics, making the purpose unmistakable even among many siblings.

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 a concrete trigger condition ('sponsor or customer wants to pay') and explicit next-step routing: call start_company_receive if not receiving, create_payment_link if charges_enabled. It also names the tool this is NOT (get_stripe_metrics) and why.

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