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

With only minimal annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description adds important behavioral context: payment triggers webhook activation of the brand automatically, and the billing is passthrough. This goes beyond what annotations provide and clarifies side effects.

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 concise sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. No fluff; every phrase adds value.

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?

Given four parameters and no output schema, the description omits return format details and the role of cancel_url/success_url. The activation-on-payment side effect is noted, but the description is not complete enough for a new agent to call it correctly without schema guesswork.

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 description coverage is only 50%, but the description does not compensate. It only mentions 'for a brand' and does not explain the purpose of plan, cancel_url, or success_url, leaving the agent uncertain about how to populate these parameters.

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 clearly states the tool returns a Stripe Checkout URL for a brand, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like brand_activate by explaining the passthrough payment flow, but it doesn't explicitly name 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 provides context that the URL is for passthrough billing and the brand pays directly, implying when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to tools like brand_activate or subscription_status.

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