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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds behavioral context by noting that passing a reference number matches payment to a prior request, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, usage guidance, and reference parameter context. No extraneous information.

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 no output schema or nested objects, and schema covers all parameters, the description is mostly complete. Minor gap: it doesn't mention that the user must have an existing lead or request to get a link (implied for the 'referencia' case, but not explicit for initial payment when no reference is passed).

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 all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds marginal value by explaining that 'referencia' should be a reference from 'create_llc_lead' and describing the enums implicitly, but the schema's enum and property descriptions are sufficient.

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 identifies the tool as returning a Stripe checkout link for three specific packages, distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_order_status' and 'get_renewal_info'. The verb 'Returns' and resource 'checkout link' are specific and unambiguous.

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 to use this tool ('user already knows which package they want and wants to pay now' or 'submitted the request earlier and wants to pay afterwards'), and implies when not to use it (e.g., when user needs a recommendation, which would go to 'recommend_llc_package'). It also provides guidance on passing a reference number if available.

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