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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false), and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the element can be inserted without a Stripe connection but will not process payments until connected. It does not describe the return value or insertion failure modes, but with annotations present this is solid added context.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then usage, then the key constraint and example. No filler and nothing misplaced.

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 9-parameter insert tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, the critical Stripe dependency, and a syntax example. Only a note on what the tool returns or on sibling routing would make it 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters, including amount units and currency format. The description's example ({amount:25, currency:"usd"}) is a helpful convenience but largely restates what the schema provides, so the 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Insert a payment question') and immediately scopes it with the scenario ('collect a payment at submit time'). It is clearly distinguishable from the many sibling editor_insert*Question tools by naming the exact element type.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('Use when the form must collect a payment at submit time') and concrete examples (tickets, fees, orders), plus the Stripe prerequisite. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming a specific alternative tool, so it falls just below the top band.

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