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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it creates an external Stripe connected account, returns an onboarding_url, discloses a privacy boundary (Stripe holds SSN/ID, not FreedomOS), and documents the approval-tier behavior (from-now-on vs just-once). This exceeds what the annotations alone convey.

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?

Key information is front-loaded (purpose, trigger, follow-up), and the routing/approval blocks add operational value. However, the routing paragraph partially restates what was already said ('Founder completes Stripe's form. Then create_payment_link' appears twice in different forms), introducing mild 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 2-param tool with no output schema but full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete: it covers the return value (onboarding_url), the gating condition (charges_enabled), exclusions, routing, and approval mechanics. Minor gaps remain around error/failure states and behavior when the company already receives, but these are edge cases for a well-scoped flow.

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 both parameters. The description adds only marginal parameter context (country feeds the Stripe connected account, companyId scopes the action), which maps naturally onto the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start the path... Creates a Stripe connected account and returns an onboarding_url'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling create_payment_link by explicitly framing it as the follow-up step, not the same action. An agent can clearly tell what this tool does and what it does not do.

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?

Gives explicit triggers ('Use when the company cannot receive yet and a real payment is waiting'), explicit exclusions ('Do not collect identity documents here. Do not open a bank via Mercury'), and names the alternative/follow-up tool (create_payment_link after charges_enabled). The routing block restates the decision rule in a parseable format. Nothing is left to inference.

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