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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (not read-only, not idempotent, open world); the description adds substantial context beyond them: the return value (status plus a single-use onboarding URL), that only the site owner can complete onboarding, and the notable side effect that completion back-fills the `products` collection. That is exactly the behavioral detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the return/behavior detail; every clause carries information. The single semicolon-chained sentence is dense and slightly run-on, costing a point on structure but not on substance.

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 usefully explains what comes back (status, onboarding URL) and the downstream effect on `products`, which is more than most definitions do. Minor gaps remain around repeat invocation behavior (not idempotent) and failure modes, but the core flow is 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 coverage is 100% with a single documented parameter ('Site id.'), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about the siteId itself; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Connect Stripe so the site can take payments') and is clearly separable from the sibling stripe_* tools (stripe_get_product, stripe_search_products), which are read operations on an already-connected account. An agent can distinguish this 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?

Gives clear triggering context (connect Stripe to enable payments) and a hard constraint ('Owner-only'), plus the completion condition ('status reads ready'). It does not name alternative tools or state when not to call it (e.g., when already connected), so it falls short of explicit routing.

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