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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses significant behavioral traits: 'This MOVES MONEY and the recipient bears the transfer fee,' labels it 'a TERMINAL ACTION,' and lists failure conditions (incomplete Connect onboarding, no pending balance).

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 four sentences, each carrying critical information: action, money movement/fee, terminal nature, and usage boundaries. It is somewhat longer than necessary but well-structured and front-loaded with the core action.

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 are no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers what, when, why, side effects, and failure modes, fully enabling correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The description adds context that the withdrawal is for the FULL pending balance, clarifying there is no amount parameter. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 specific action: 'Immediately withdraw this account's FULL pending royalty balance via Stripe Connect.' It uses a specific verb (withdraw) and resource (royalty balance), and distinguishes itself from payout_balance by noting it bypasses the monthly batch and minimum threshold.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'only call it when the author has EXPLICITLY asked to withdraw / cash out now.' It also gives an explicit alternative: 'Do NOT call it just to check the balance — use payout_balance for that.'

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