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

Annotations supply the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It does: it discloses a human-in-the-loop prerequisite (user consent) and the fact that the return payload contains an order_id used by a follow-up tool. It does not mention that repeat calls would create additional links, which is the one notable gap given idempotentHint=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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the precondition, then the follow-up. Every sentence carries distinct operational information with no restatement of the title or name.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned order_id and the tool that consumes it. The consent prerequisite and payment-display step round out the call contract, though link format/expiry and re-call behavior are left unstated.

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 100% and the enum values with prices are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the implicit notion that app_token is per-app ('for one app') and no format or sourcing detail beyond what audit_app/.approvekit.json already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ('Creates a Stripe Checkout link for one app') and is immediately distinguishable from audit_app, get_order, and publish_document. The scope ('for one app') also signals it operates on a single app_token rather than bulk.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Only call this after the user agreed to the purchase') and a concrete downstream workflow ('Show the link to the user so they can pay; then call get_order with the returned order_id'). It names the sibling to call next and the data to pass, which is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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