Diagnose a transfer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this is a diagnostic/read-oriented operation ('check what makes Connect transfers fail') and enumerates the behaviors it performs, such as comparing settlement currency, checking amounts, balance, payouts, and refunds. It does not explicitly say 'does not modify anything', but the framing strongly implies it.

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 dense sentence with the input format front-loaded and the failure checks following in a compact list. It is efficient and informative, though the long enumeration slows readability slightly.

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 one-parameter diagnostics tool, the description covers the input format, purpose, and the specific checks performed. The main gap is the lack of any mention of output shape or return value, but that is not essential for correct invocation and the description is otherwise adequate.

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 input schema already fully describes the single id parameter with the same 'tr_... or ch_...' format, so the description repeats rather than adds parameter semantics. The listed failure causes are useful context but not new meaning for the parameter itself. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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 states a specific verb ('check') and resource (Connect transfers), and immediately scopes the input to transfer or charge IDs. It lists concrete failure categories, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like stripe_diagnose_account and stripe_list_transfers.

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 phrase 'Given a transfer id ... or a charge id ...' provides a clear when-to-use context: use this when troubleshooting why a Connect transfer failed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the diagnostic intent is evident.

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