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

The description adds the context of being legacy and optional, but does not disclose the actual behavior of the onboarding process (e.g., external redirects, required Stripe account setup). Annotations indicate it is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds limited additional 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, concise sentence that front-loads the category '[Sell]' and clearly states the tool's status and alternative. Every word earns its place with no wasted space.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and the clear pointer to 'request_cashout', the description is adequate for an optional legacy tool. Some detail about what 'onboarding' entails is missing, but the low complexity and sibling context make it reasonably 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 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 identifies the tool as 'Legacy Stripe Connect onboarding' and positions it as optional for sellers, which clearly differentiates it from the primary 'request_cashout' sibling. It lacks a strong action verb but still conveys the specific resource and purpose.

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?

Explicitly states that the primary cashout path is 'request_cashout' and marks this as 'optional' and 'legacy', giving clear guidance to prefer the alternative. This is strong usage direction.

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