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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that the return value is the operation's parameters for building a subsequent call, but says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown/ambiguous operation id or the format of the returned parameter spec.

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?

A single sentence with the action and its purpose front-loaded; no filler, no repetition of the title.

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 one-parameter metadata lookup with no output schema, the description conveys the essential contract: it returns the request parameters for a given operation id so read/write can be constructed. A brief note on what the returned parameter spec looks like (required vs optional fields, path/body split) would make it fully self-sufficient.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%: the schema already gives examples (GetCustomers, PostCustomers) and points to stripe_api_search for discovery. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema documents, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get the parameters of one Stripe API operation') and names the downstream siblings stripe_api_read and stripe_api_write, which is exactly how it differs from stripe_api_search (which locates the id). An agent can place it in the Stripe workflow without opening the schema.

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 clause 'so a stripe_api_read or stripe_api_write call is built correctly' makes the intended sequence explicit: look up the operation's parameters before invoking read/write. No explicit exclusion is stated (e.g. 'do not call for operations you already know'), but the usage context is unambiguous.

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