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

Goes well beyond the annotations by stating that nothing is charged by this tool, that filing begins only after payment, that a checkout_url must never be reported as paid or filed, and that plan-included accounts return included_in_plan and filed true instead of a link. It also flags that submission is not carrier approval and forbids collecting EINs, documents, credentials, or attestations in chat — material behavioral context the structured fields do not carry.

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 purpose and cost model are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the dense guardrails each address a real failure mode. It is a long, largely unsegmented paragraph, so the plan-included branch and the confirm_submission rule take effort to parse, but little of the content is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still names the key return signals (checkout_url, included_in_plan, filed) so the agent can branch correctly. Combined with ownership requirements, prerequisites, payment behavior, and the plan-based alternate path, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 coverage is only 50% (business_id is undocumented), so the description must compensate, and it does for confirm_submission by spelling out that it is true only after the owner reviews and confirms saved details plus possible immediate carrier submission. business_id is left to inference, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: 'Create the payment link for a business's own carrier registration', with pricing scope (one-time filing fee plus monthly campaign fee) that separates it from generic siblings like create_checkout. The carve-out for plans that include registration is stated, though no sibling tool is named explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than routed.

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 preconditions ('Business owner only, and only once the details and the EIN are saved') and an explicit when-not path (accounts where registration is included in the plan skip payment entirely and file immediately). It also gates the call on confirm_submission being true only after the owner reviews and confirms the saved details, leaving nothing to inference.

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