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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: credits appear only once after payment, and a redirect is not proof of payment. This informs the agent about race conditions and the correct interpretation of results, aligning with the annotated read-only nature.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. The polling and verification guidance are necessary and well-timed, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema already present. The description covers the essential operational context, including the important polling caveats. The only gap is the missing explicit connection between payment_id and the checkout preparation flow, which is a minor omission.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to explain what payment_id refers to and how it should be obtained, but it doesn't mention the parameter at all. The UUID format and property name give only a weak hint of its meaning, leaving a meaningful semantic 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?

The description states a specific operation (read Stripe checkout status) on a scoped resource (this account), making the core purpose clear. It effectively contrasts with sister preparation tools like prepare_stripe_checkout by focusing on retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

It gives concrete usage guidance: poll at least five seconds apart and never assume a redirect or user message proves payment. This tells the agent how to use the tool correctly, though it doesn't explicitly route between this tool and related payment/checkout siblings.

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