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

The description calls it a 'read-only view', which matches the readOnlyHint annotation and adds the scope constraint 'ONE PaymentIntent'. However, it does not go beyond the annotations to describe any other behavioral traits, such as error handling or side effects of opening a widget. With annotations already covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

With a simple 2-parameter schema, 100% coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. It clearly identifies the target and input options. It does not mention what happens if both or neither parameters are provided, but the schema's optionality hints imply one is required. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameters, but the description adds the explicit 'OR' relationship between paymentIntentId and customerName, clarifying mutual exclusivity. This goes beyond the schema's conditional descriptions and helps the agent understand how to supply 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 action ('Opens the cobro status widget'), the resource ('cobro status widget'), and the scope ('ONE PaymentIntent's payment state'). It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting it's a widget, separating it from data-returning tools like get_payment_intent_status.

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 tool is used to open the widget for a single PaymentIntent, and the 'OR' clause gives parameter usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_payment_intent_status, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions.

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