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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a prerequisite (Stripe secret key), describes output structure ('full Stripe charge objects'), and details what each query type returns. It doesn't mention rate limits or error handling, but for a read-only retrieval tool, the behavior is well covered.

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 longer than minimal but every sentence serves a purpose: core function, query types details, use cases, alternatives, exclusions, and prerequisite. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though slightly verbose due to the detailed enumeration of query types.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by explaining what each query type returns. It also covers prerequisite requirements and clarifies scope vs alternatives. A minor ambiguity exists in the claim that the tool returns 'full Stripe charge objects' for all query types, as customers/subscriptions likely return different object types, but overall it is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 describes both parameters with 100% coverage, but the description adds value beyond the schema by specifying exact return fields (status, amount, currency, error codes, etc.) for each query_type. The limit parameter is not mentioned in the description, but the schema already covers its semantics; thus, the description adds meaningful detail for query_type.

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 explicitly states the tool's function ('Retrieves live payment data from a Stripe account via the Stripe API') and enumerates four distinct query types, each with specific outputs. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like stripe_payment_records, which is mentioned as a lighter-weight alternative.

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 provides explicit use cases ('investigate payment failures, audit recent transaction activity...'), a direct alternative recommendation ('Prefer stripe_payment_records for a lighter-weight...'), and exclusions with alternatives ('Do not use for bank account transactions... use open_banking_transactions instead'). This fully addresses when to use the tool.

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