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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only on Stripe ('Reads paid Stripe customers (read-only)'), idempotent ('re-running is safe, never double-counts'), and requires a connected Stripe account. It also mentions an approval tier for first use. This level of detail is exemplary for behavioral transparency.

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 concise yet comprehensive. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, then explains the process, usage context, routing, and approval notes. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is logical. No redundant or vague statements.

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 tool with one simple input parameter and no output schema, the description provides complete context: the process (reading customers, matching by email, recording deals), idempotency, prerequisites, and approval tier. An agent can fully understand what the tool does and what to expect without additional information.

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 input schema has only one required parameter (companyId) with a description already covering its purpose and required membership. The tool description does not add any further information about the parameter, but given 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: recording won deals from Stripe to measure lead→paid conversion. It uses specific verbs like 'reads', 'matches', 'records' and describes a specific resource (paid Stripe customers). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying when to use it (conversion not yet measured or to refresh) and implies it's different from other Stripe tools like get_stripe_metrics.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: 'Use when conversion isn't measured yet or to refresh the conversion picture.' It also notes a prerequisite ('Only works if Stripe is connected'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, which would raise it to a 5.

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