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

Annotations indicate it's not read-only, may have side effects (openWorldHint true) and is not idempotent. The description adds key context: it starts a one-off purchase via guest Stripe Checkout, no account needed, and that Stripe collects an email. It also says it returns checkout_url + next_steps reflecting a multi-step flow. It doesn't mention idempotency or repeated calls, but given openWorldHint, it's implied. This is a good addition beyond annotations.

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 well-structured, front-loaded with the core purpose, then details and follow-up instructions. It's concise despite length, covering all essential aspects without fluff.

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?

Given the complexity of a purchase flow with Stripe and tiers, the description covers the purpose, parameters, next steps, and cross-reference to pricing and claim_dossier. It's complete for selecting and invoking correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains 'tier' with options and prices, 'pack' with values, and 'entity_id' as the target. It does not explain 'entity_name', which remains ambiguous. Since it's not required, maybe acceptable. But given the lack of schema description, it covers most, so 4.

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 action (start a one-off dossier purchase), the mechanism (guest Stripe Checkout), and the target resource (dossiers). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_pricing (pricing list) and claim_dossier (post-payment claim step), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explains when to use this tool (to start a purchase) and notes that no WhiteIntel account is needed (a key differentiator). It also mentions the follow-up step (feed session_id to claim_dossier) and references get_pricing for the full list, which helps guide selection. However, it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use this tool vs other tools like get_dossier or get_payment_link, though the purpose is distinct enough.

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