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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals important side effects: orderNumber+email does not return the link but sends an email to the customer, with rate limits (max 1×/15 min, 3×/day). It also explains behavior for open, already-paid, and in-progress bank-verification payments. There is no contradiction with readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, or destructiveHint=false.

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?

Three dense sentences are front-loaded with the core purpose, then add scope, behavioral nuances, authorization rules, and rate limits. Every sentence carries decision-relevant information with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers triggers, card-only constraints, alternative flows, authorization modes, side effects, payment-state behavior, and rate limits. It gives an agent enough context to call the tool correctly in both supported parameter combinations.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that statusToken produces a direct paymentUrl response while orderNumber+email only triggers an email delivery, which the schema alone does not fully convey.

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 states the exact function: returns a Stripe paymentUrl for an existing card order, and explicitly ties it to the lost/expired-link scenario. It also narrows scope to card-only orders, which clearly differentiates it from transfer-payment flows and sibling tools like create_order or get_order_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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('když zákazník odkaz ztratil nebo vypršel') and when not to ('Jen pro objednávky kartou', with transfer orders pointing to create_order). It also documents the two authorization modes and their different behaviors, so an agent knows which parameters return the link versus trigger an email.

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