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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the single most important trait: no silent charging, the URL is returned for explicit user authorization. It still omits whether a pending record is created, URL expiry, idempotency, and permission requirements.

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 sentences, no filler, with the operation front-loaded in the first clause and the safety contract immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a mutation-adjacent tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description covers purpose and the authorization contract but leaves the agent guessing about the surrounding workflow, parameter meanings, and what the returned URL can be used for or how long it lives.

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 33% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all: it never explains the single/top3/full package enum, what search_id identifies, or how result_id pairs with package=single. With low coverage, the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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: create a Stripe Checkout URL for a PaidHandshake result package. That is far more specific than a generic 'create' tool, but it never names or distinguishes itself from the adjacent money-flow siblings (get_unlock_quote, quote_paid_machine_job, submit_paid_machine_job), so an agent must infer its place in the sequence.

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?

The description implies the workflow step ('return the URL to the user for explicit authorization') and the schema hints at the prerequisite (result_id from a locked preview), but it never states explicitly when to call this versus get_unlock_quote or quote_paid_machine_job, nor any preconditions. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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