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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), yet the description still adds real behavior: availability is rechecked before checkout, registration happens only after payment clears, and it states explicit idempotency and confirmation-boundary policy. The confirmation sentence is broad template prose that mixes reads and writes, which slightly muddies it rather than clarifying.

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 action is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the following canonicality/idempotency/confirmation boilerplate is long and partly generic. The confirmation sentence enumerates unrelated categories, which dilutes an otherwise efficient opening.

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?

For a one-parameter checkout tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, availability recheck, post-payment registration, canonicality, and retry behavior. The main gap is that it never explains _corply_context or the returned checkout surface it tells the agent to trust.

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 is effectively one parameter (_corply_context) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about supplying or using it. The parameter is generic plumbing rather than a domain selector, so the omission is not fatal, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('Create the founder-paid checkout') and scopes it to 'a domain chosen outside incorporation/import', which cleanly separates it from siblings like search_company_domains, choose_company_domain, and checkout_charter_filing. It never names a sibling outright, but the scope constraint is enough for an agent to route correctly.

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?

Prerequisites are given ('authenticated active company access plus every prerequisite stated above'), but 'stated above' is anaphoric in a standalone definition and there is no explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g., use choose_company_domain first). Usage is implied rather than guided.

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