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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints: the data source (Stripe), the dependency on Stripe being connected, and the exact fields returned. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 with the core function, then the return fields, then usage context and a dependency. Every sentence carries useful information with no 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 read-only tool with fully documented parameters and helpful annotations, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it, and a key operational prerequisite. There is no missing information that would prevent an agent from invoking 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces the meaning of sort_by by mentioning LTV/revenue, but it does not add significant new parameter-level information 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 description states a specific action and resource: getting top customers ranked by LTV or revenue from Stripe. It also lists the returned fields, making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_stripe_metrics, so differentiation is left mostly to the Stripe/customer framing.

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 concrete use cases ('identify high-value accounts and retention opportunities') and a prerequisite ('Only works if Stripe is connected'). It does not mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the context is enough for an agent to recognize the intended scenario.

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