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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the return value (one-time onboarding_url), the need for human action in a browser, the persistence of payout disabled status until Stripe verification, and the recommendation to poll connect_status. This is rich, honest disclosure of the tool's side effects and flow.

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 exactly three sentences, each serving a purpose: (1) states the action and goal, (2) describes the return value and human step, (3) explains requirements and follow-up. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it concise and well-structured for an agent to quickly parse.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a complete picture: what the tool does, when it's needed, what it returns, what human action is required, and what to do next. It even covers edge-case behavior (drafts remain draft, payouts stay disabled). This is fully self-contained for an agent to use correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the input schema (empty object) fully covers parameter semantics. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools, and the description does not need to add parameter-specific details. No deduction is taken for missing parameter explanation since none exist.

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 phrase 'Start (or resume) Stripe Connect onboarding' and clearly states the goal (receive author royalties). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like connect_status by describing the initiation action and directing follow-up to connect_status, so there is no confusion about its 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?

The description explicitly states when this tool is required ('Required before a book can be published'), what happens without it (books stay in draft), and provides a follow-up instruction ('poll connect_status afterward'). This gives clear context for when to use this tool versus checking status, making the usage guidance exemplary.

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