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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value beyond annotations by stating that no API key is needed, that the check returns one of four statuses, and that it requires a secret claimToken. This provides useful behavioral context.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no redundant words. Every phrase adds value (what it checks, what statuses, what's required, what's not needed).

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?

The tool is simple, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the output object contains beyond listing possible statuses. It also does not address error cases (e.g., invalid token, expired session). However, for a status-check tool, the provided info is moderately complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions parameter names (sessionId, claimToken) and labels claimToken as 'secret', but offers no details on their format, origin, or constraints. For two simple string parameters, this minimal explanation is insufficient to fully guide an agent.

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 checks the status of an agent-created Stripe checkout, listing the possible statuses (pending, paid, claimed, expired). It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('Stripe checkout'), distinguishing it from siblings like claim_checkout or create_checkout.

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 provides basic usage context: it requires sessionId and claimToken but no API key. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to check status vs. claiming or creating), nor does it list any prerequisites or exclusions.

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