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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the user completes payment externally on Stripe checkout or in the Vipps app, and 'nothing is charged unless they complete the payment'. However, it omits whether repeated calls create multiple links or how the returned link should be surfaced, which matters for a non-idempotent tool that creates a new artifact each call.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the product catalogue is useful information rather than filler. Some phrasing is clumsy and redundant ('when a Vipps link comes too (pass and questions)', 'price shown at checkout'), which costs a point but does not obscure meaning.

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?

For a single-parameter purchase tool with no output schema, the definition covers the whole flow: what is created, where the user pays, that no charge occurs without completion, and what each product costs. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the enum lists the four product values, so the baseline is modest. The description goes beyond the enum by giving prices, durations and limits for each product (49 kr / 7 days / 50 questions; 39 kr / 10 questions never expiring; unlimited for subscriptions), which genuinely informs selection. It stops short of any per-parameter guidance such as handling ambiguity in the user's choice.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: creates a payment link so the user can buy Lovly access on their own account. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ask_lovly, get_lovly_account and unlock_answer, which do not involve purchasing.

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?

Gives an explicit gating condition — 'Only call this when the user wants to buy' — and adds the interaction rule 'let them pick the product', which tells the agent not to guess the product itself. It does not name an alternative tool for account questions or answer unlocking, but the when-to-use condition is unambiguous.

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