Diagnose a connected account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the kind of analysis performed (explaining why an account cannot charge or get paid out) and lists the categories of reasons it checks. However, it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it makes any external calls, or what the output format looks like. For a diagnostic tool, the lack of output format detail is a gap, but the description does convey the behavioral intent.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Explain why a connected account cannot charge or get paid out') and then lists the specific diagnostic categories. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of the schema.

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 diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It tells the agent what problem this tool solves and what areas it covers. It could be improved by noting whether the output is a human-readable explanation or structured data, and whether it is read-only, but given the simplicity of the tool, the description covers the essential context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description names the single parameter implicitly: 'a connected account' maps directly to account_id. It also explains what the tool does with that account (diagnoses why it cannot charge or get paid out). With only one parameter and a clear pattern in the schema, the description adds enough context for an agent to understand what account_id represents.

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 uses a specific verb ('Explain why') and names the exact resource ('a connected account') and the specific failure modes it diagnoses (disabled reasons, past-due requirements, capabilities, missing bank account, TOS). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like stripe_get_account, which would retrieve account data but not synthesize a diagnosis.

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 implies when to use it: when a connected account cannot charge or get paid out. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer this is the diagnostic tool for account-level charge/payout problems, versus stripe_diagnose_transfer for transfer-specific issues.

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