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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: nothing is charged by this tool, filing starts only after payment, and a warning not to claim the registration is paid or filed from a checkout_url. The plan-included branch returning included_in_plan and filed=true is extra disclosure not derivable from annotations.

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 with the core action, then preconditions, then the alternate branch. Every sentence carries information, though the 'Never claim the registration is paid' instruction is directive rather than descriptive and adds some length. Efficient overall for the amount of behavior conveyed.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description still names the key return fields (checkout_url, included_in_plan, filed) and the branch conditions, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret the result.

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?

Only one parameter (business_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. It implies the business must have saved details and an EIN, which contextualizes the identifier, but never explicitly says what business_id refers to or its format. Adequate but not fully compensating.

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+resource ('Create the payment link for a business's own carrier registration') and immediately scopes it with the fee structure, distinguishing it from generic siblings like create_checkout and get_checkout_status. The two-branch behavior (link vs. plan-included auto-file) is spelled out, so an agent knows exactly what this tool produces.

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 preconditions are given: business owner only, only after details and EIN are saved, and only after the owner confirms the details. It also names the alternative path (plan that includes registration) that changes what the tool does, which is a clear when/when-not split.

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