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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful scope ('ONE PaymentIntent') but otherwise mostly repeats the read-only nature. No contradictions, but beyond the scope constraint, it does not disclose additional behavioral details.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the parameter relationship. No filler, every word contributes to understanding.

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 tool is simple with no output schema, but the description does not explicitly state that at least one of the two parameters is required. An agent might incorrectly assume it can call with zero arguments since both parameters are optional in the schema. The 'ONE PaymentIntent' phrasing implies a need for identification but this should be stated directly.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The description adds the crucial either/or relationship ('Accepts paymentIntentId OR customerName'), which is not fully explicit in the schema since both are marked optional. This helps prevent misuse.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Opens the cobro status widget — a read-only view of ONE PaymentIntent's payment state.' It uses a specific verb ('Opens'), identifies the resource ('cobro status widget'), and scopes it to a single PaymentIntent. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_payment_intent_status.

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 implies usage context by calling it a 'read-only view' and mentioning the parameter relationship, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_payment_intent_status. There is no mention of when-not-to-use or naming alternative tools.

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