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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true, destructiveHint false). The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: it makes an idempotent provider call after a durable local claim, never receives identity documents or bank/card data, activates no route, moves no money, and requires no additional confirmation. This is rich, non-contradictory transparency.

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 opening sentence is strong and labeled sections aid navigation. However, the latter paragraphs contain generic policy boilerplate such as canonicality and confirmation-boundary phrasing that is only loosely tool-specific. It is informative but not tightly edited.

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 purpose, side effects, prerequisites, and follow-up tooling. But it does not specify the response shape beyond 'return the onboardingLink', and it omits the optional companyId and _corply_context parameters. Given the absence of an output schema and low parameter coverage, meaningful gaps remain.

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 25% (just _corply_context). The description loosely maps to routeId as 'one existing Corply payment route' and idempotencyKey as an idempotent call with a retry key, but it never names companyId or _corply_context or explains how to populate them. With such low coverage, the description needed to compensate far more.

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 is explicit and specific: 'Create or recover the secure hosted Moov sandbox onboarding link for one existing Corply payment route.' It names the verb, the resource, and scope, and differentiates from pipeline-status and refresh siblings by stating what it does not do: it activates no route, moves no money, and never receives sensitive data.

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 clear contextual guidance: prerequisites are stated, the returned onboardingLink should be given to the founder, and get_payment_pipeline_status should be called after completion. It also tells the agent not to add a state-recovery call. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with the sibling refresh_payment_route_onboarding, so it stops short of a 5.

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