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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation? Actually it implies a write/mutation ('Register'), but does not reveal side effects like sending verification emails, creating Stripe Connect accounts, or whether the operator is activated immediately. Given the lack of annotation support, the description should disclose more behavioral details such as idempotency or asynchronous onboarding.

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 a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. It conveys the essential purpose without extra fluff. It is slightly under-specified in terms of context, but for a one-liner it is 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?

Given the tool has only 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a basic action. However, because it is a mutation with external side effects (Stripe Connect onboarding), more context about the onboarding process or following steps would improve completeness. It is adequate but not exceptional.

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 already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond 'email' and 'name', but the baseline is 3 because schema coverage is high. Even so, it could have explained format expectations (e.g., valid email format) or how these parameters are used in Stripe onboarding, but it does not.

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 action: 'Register a new operator account' with Stripe Connect onboarding, which specifies the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'get_operator_info' or 'create_plan', though the purpose is unambiguous enough given the context.

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 no when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. While the purpose is clear, it does not explain prerequisites, such as whether Stripe Connect onboarding requires additional steps, or how this tool differs from related account creation tools. This leaves the agent without explicit context for selection among siblings.

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