firestarter_connect_payouts

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful process context: it returns a browser link, payout enables only after the owner finishes onboarding, and calling it when already set up just reports that. It doesn't specify what destructive effect occurs, but the annotation already flags 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 front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance, then parameter note. The parenthetical about earnings accruing from any country is useful context but slightly extends length; overall, every sentence contributes.

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 tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, this description covers purpose, when to use, return value (onboarding link), post-conditions (payouts enable), idempotent behavior, and parameter usage. No critical gaps remain for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, with country fully documented as an ISO-3166-1 alpha-2 code and 'Only needed if onboarding asks.' The description only repeats this optionality, adding no new semantic detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Connect a Stripe payout account so a community-market owner can WITHDRAW their accrued earnings.' It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explaining it returns a Stripe onboarding link and enables payouts, rather than just listing/checking payouts or withdrawing directly.

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?

It gives explicit triggers: 'Use when an owner asks to get paid, cash out, set up payouts, or connect Stripe.' The sentence 'If already fully set up, it just says so' covers the already-done case, but no alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions are named.

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