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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description goes further by disclosing the state side effect: a confirmed payment makes that company active and causes post-payment tools to write to it. It also surfaces the gating semantics tied to paymentStatus=Complete, which no annotation conveys.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the trigger, the gate, and the side effect. Nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration, yet the description still names the decisive paymentStatus value. For a payment-verification step with real state consequences, the agent has everything required to call it correctly and to sequence follow-up tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including the analytics fields. The description adds only the provenance of checkoutSessionId, which the schema itself already states, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Checks with Stripe whether the formation checkout was paid') and implicitly contrasts with create_checkout_session by consuming its output. An agent can distinguish it from sibling tools without inspecting the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('once the user says they've paid'), the required input source (checkoutSessionId from create_checkout_session), and a hard exclusion ('Do NOT ask any post-payment question until it returns paymentStatus=Complete'). This is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs.

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