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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the owner-only auth restriction and the important behavioral fact that "Nothing starts until they do," i.e. calling it has no side effect on payment state. It omits link expiry/reuse behavior and whether repeated calls mint new links, which keeps it from a 5.

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 permission constraint and non-effect are front-loaded, and the whole thing is three tight sentences. The trailing status enumeration is dropped in without saying what field it belongs to (the output schema), which costs a little clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and the single-parameter surface is simple. The description covers who may call it and what happens next; only link lifetime/reuse semantics are 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?

There is one parameter (shop_id) at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate — it only implies shop scoping through "the shop's payment setup page." The parameter name is self-explanatory, but no format or constraint detail is added, so this is the minimum viable score.

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+resource: produces the link to a shop's payment setup page, scoped to the owner. It is easily distinguished from neighbors like cards_setupLink, hub_createLink or payouts_get because it names Stripe card/bank onboarding explicitly.

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?

"Owner only" plus "Give it to the owner; they open it, sign in, and press one button" gives a clear usage pattern and implicitly tells the agent this is a hand-off artifact, not a direct setup call. It does not name alternatives or state when not to call it (e.g., if payments are already active), so it falls short of a 5.

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