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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description explains the mechanism behind that destructiveness by stating each new link invalidates earlier links for the same quote, plus that tax is added at checkout. It omits auth/side-effect details but adds genuine behavioral value beyond the structured flags.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key side effect. No padding or repetition of schema content.

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, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description covers the operation and its invalidation side effect. The main gap is not naming the alternative payment tool, which matters for agent routing.

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 100% and the single quote_id parameter is documented as originating from create_quote (qt_...). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for fully covered schema is appropriate.

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: obtaining a Stripe Checkout URL for card payment, scoped to a quote. The 'Option A' framing signals an alternative payment path exists, but does not name it (the sibling pay_with_crypto), so sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

'for a human to pay by card' scopes the audience and payment method, implying when this applies. However, it never states when to prefer this over the crypto alternative or any prerequisites, leaving routing to inference from the bare 'Option A' label.

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