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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the exact Stripe field being checked (charges_enabled), frames the tool as a live checkout status check, and implies a read-only getter. However, it does not explicitly describe the return value shape (e.g., boolean vs. status object), which would be valuable given there is no output schema.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause earns its place: use case, two action branches, and sibling exclusion, with no repeated schema details or filler.

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 one-parameter status tool, the description covers trigger, routing, and next actions almost completely. The only gap is the lack of an explicit return contract, which matters more here because no output schema exists.

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 only parameter, companyId, is fully described in the schema, including the membership requirement and company-scope context. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the high schema coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 'See whether this company can receive money (Stripe charges_enabled)' names the specific verb, resource, and underlying flag. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_stripe_metrics, so an agent can identify when this tool applies without inspecting other schemas.

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?

It gives the trigger ('sponsor or customer wants to pay and you need to know if checkout is live'), the negative branch ('call start_company_receive'), the positive branch ('call create_payment_link'), and an explicit routing exclusion for get_stripe_metrics. This is exemplary when-to-use guidance.

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