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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for additional disclosure is lowered. The description adds context that it independently verifies payment and returns a bounded audit result conditionally, which is useful behavioral information beyond the annotations.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and the parameter origin, with no redundant wording. Every word adds value, making it highly efficient.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It explains the trigger (session ID) and the expected outcome (audit result when available), though it could specify error behavior for invalid sessions, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains the single parameter (session_id) as the Stripe Checkout Session ID from the paid flow. This completely compensates for the missing schema descriptions and gives the agent precise meaning for the parameter.

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 states a specific verb (verify) and resource (payment/audit result), and it clearly differentiates from siblings by describing the post-payment status check. It mentions the Stripe Checkout Session ID and the conditional audit result, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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 explicitly says to use the Stripe Checkout Session ID from the paid flow, establishing the clear prerequisite and context for invocation. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling names and the described flow make the usage context sufficiently clear.

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