buy_dossier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses critical behaviors: guest checkout, Stripe collects email, session is single-use and expires in 24 hours, and caller-supplied entity_name is not displayed (safety about audit data). It also warns against fetching the URL. This is comprehensive and goes beyond basics.

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 paragraph but efficiently packed with essential information. Each sentence adds value: pricing, required parameters, return value, error conditions, alternatives, and security warnings. Despite length, it is front-loaded with the core purpose and ends with critical usage caveats. No redundant fluff.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description explicitly states the return (checkout_url + next_steps) and the follow-up workflow (feed session_id to claim_dossier). With full parameter documentation and clear behavior, the description is complete for the tool's complexity. It addresses all necessary aspects for correct invocation.

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 high (100%), so baseline is 3, but description adds value: it explains the pricing tiers in prose, clarifies that entity_id comes from search_entities, and details entity_name's audit-only role and its recent behavior change. It supplements the schema with context that helps correct invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource and clear purpose: 'Start a one-off dossier purchase via guest Stripe доListening surtout mailing类专业 unsaturated бы粱作为一名大笑mesytetiwxx: product name visible anywhere, product name without, "buy_dossier" not mention in "Buy" or , and line: "Start a one-off dossier purchase..." This differentiates from siblings like get_payment_link (permanent link) and claim_dossier (token retrieval). It clearly states the action and the return of checkout_url, and distinguishes from get_pricing and get_payment_link.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'WRONG TOOL IF NOBODY IS THERE TO PAY...' and 'Use get_payment_link for a permanent, reusable one...'. It also warns not to fetch checkout_url programmatically. This provides clear when/when-not guidance and names alternatives.

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