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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it makes provider reads only, never changes the provider account, activates the sandbox route only when all required provider facts are ready, moves no money, and cannot enable production. It also addresses idempotency and canonicality, telling the agent to trust the returned output rather than adding a state-recovery call. These details significantly exceed what the sparse annotations provide.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the description then adds lengthy generic boilerplate about prerequisites, canonicality, idempotency, and confirmation boundaries. Several sentences are not tool-specific and read like templated policy text, making the description heavier than necessary without adding commensurate value.

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?

The description covers the main safety and side-effect boundaries and mentions the returned actual_tool_output, but it lacks an output schema and does not describe the expected result shape or failure conditions. It also leaves companyId and routeId semantics unexplained. For a tool with moderate complexity and no output schema, this is adequate but not 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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the semantics of routeId or companyId. It says 'for one Corply route' and mentions a server-only route connection, but it never maps those concepts to specific parameters. The _corply_context parameter is documented in the schema, but the core identifiers are left underspecified.

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 names a specific verb/resource: it reads the hosted Moov sandbox onboarding invite, capability statuses, default wallet, and payout-bank method for one Corply route, then converges the server-only route connection. It also disambiguates itself by stating it never changes the provider account, moves no money, and cannot enable production, which separates it from related payment-route tools. This is specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's core function.

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 provides clear usage context: it requires authenticated active organization access and all stated prerequisites, and it explains when no extra confirmation is needed. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say 'use X instead of Y,' but it does imply boundaries such as not accepting chat-supplied credentials and not enabling production, which helps an agent decide when to invoke it.

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