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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and the description is consistent – it is purely a metadata/setup lookup, no writes implied. It goes beyond annotations by disclosing what each request returns (workspace_id, brand_id, source metadata, available_actions, exact request body, required identifiers, time ranges, notes) and that available_actions is redundant with the accounts response, though it doesn't state error behavior or whether repeated calls are cached.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by numbered steps and clearly marked optionals; each block earns its place. It is slightly padded by the repeated 'Optional:' labels and the note that available_actions is already included in accounts, which could be folded into the accounts step.

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 multi-mode dispatch tool with five parameters and an output schema, the description covers the full realistic call flow from discovery to action detail lookup, so an agent can drive it end-to-end. The gaps are the undocumented platform parameter and no note on what happens if actions_details is called with an invalid action id.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load, and it largely does: each enum value of request is explained with purpose and return shape, and actions is clarified as values copied from available_actions that must be requested before querying. The platform parameter and its accepted values are never mentioned anywhere, leaving one of five parameters fully opaque.

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 the tool's role concretely: a setup/planning helper for Stripe data queries in InsightfulPipe, and enumerates four request modes with what each returns. It does not explicitly name the sibling it hands off to (execute_action) for the actual data retrieval, so the boundary with siblings is only implied by the 'planning' 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?

Explicit sequencing: Step 1 request='accounts', Step 2 request='actions_details' with actions=['xxxxxx',...] and a bold-level 'REQUIRED before querying' warning. It also labels the remaining two calls as optional and gives their preconditions (brand_id + workspace_id for brands), leaving nothing to inference about when to call what.

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