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

Annotations only say non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the tool returns Stripe's hosted setup page, bank and identity details are entered there and never in chat, and repeat invocation reveals connection/readiness state rather than blindly re-connecting. It doesn't explain what happens if the user has multiple accounts or how to disconnect.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and keeps the payoff (money goes to the owner, no fee) and the security note in subordinate clauses. Slightly dense with nested em-dash clauses, but nothing 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly covers the return shape (Stripe setup URL or connection readiness), which is the key thing an agent must relay. Remaining gaps are minor: no guidance on prerequisites, eligibility, or multi-account handling.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies and there is no param semantics for the description to compensate for.

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: connecting the owner's OWN Stripe account so client payments route directly to them. The parenthetical about ShearQuery taking no per-booking fee and the emphasis on 'OWN' distinguishes this from generic payment-policy tools like set_booking_payments_and_policy.

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?

Usage is implied (a pro who isn't yet connected needs this to accept cards), and the description does address the already-connected case by saying it will report readiness. But it never explicitly states when to reach for this versus siblings, nor any prerequisite such as being signed in as the account owner.

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