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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: what it never returns (provider credentials, hosted payment tokens, bank/card data, customer data), that it makes zero provider calls and moves no money, that it is idempotent and safe to repeat, that it reads current server state without manufacturing facts, and that no confirmation is needed. This is rich behavioral disclosure that materially helps an agent predict side effects, and it aligns with — rather than contradicts — the 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 front-loaded with the canonical purpose and organized into logical clauses (returns, exclusions, usage, prerequisite, canonicality, idempotency, confirmation boundary). However, it carries bloat: the confirmation-boundary sentence is a long templated enumeration ('reversible save, explicit fact/evidence record, link preparation, plan refresh...') that could be shortened, and the 'plus every prerequisite stated above' phrase dangles awkwardly. It is structured and mostly earns its length, but not every sentence is tight.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values — and it does, listing route info, lifecycle counts, totals, state, reconciliation state, and blockers. It also covers exclusions, side-effect safety, preconditions, idempotency, and confirmation requirements, which is strong for a read-only status tool of moderate complexity. Remaining gaps are minor: no error-condition disclosure and the vague 'prerequisites stated above' reference, so it falls just short of fully 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 description coverage is only 33% (only _corply_context is described in the schema), so the description must compensate. It does so only implicitly: 'for one company' clues companyId and 'recent payment state' hints at recentPaymentLimit, but it never explicitly explains what recentPaymentLimit — the sole required parameter — controls (e.g., number of recent payments returned) or the role of companyId in scoping. The description adds marginal meaning but does not fill the coverage gap for the most important parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Canonical read for Corply's own payment pipeline') and enumerates exactly what it returns: merchant routes, lifecycle counts, gross settled/refunded/paid-out totals, recent payment state, reconciliation state, and blockers for one company. It also explicitly differentiates itself from the legacy Paddle integration planner, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like reconcile_payment_route, await_payment, and verify_payment_integration without inspecting schemas.

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?

The description gives an explicit selection condition ('Use this instead of the legacy Paddle integration planner when the founder wants Corply-controlled payment portals') and states a prerequisite ('authenticated active organization access'). It does not exhaustively enumerate when not to use it versus the other payment siblings, and the reference to 'every prerequisite stated above' is a dangling citation since no prerequisites are actually listed above — a minor gap in an otherwise actionable routing statement.

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