Check the owner's payment and get the API key

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the api_key is returned exactly once on the first call with claim_token, must be stored securely, and is used as a Bearer token. This one-time-secret semantics is critical and is consistent with idempotentHint=false, which the description effectively explains.

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?

Four tight sentences with zero filler: purpose and status values first, then the critical one-time key behavior, then polling cadence. Front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating all status values and describing what an active status returns. Auth usage and secret handling are covered, so an agent has everything needed to call and act on the result.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: claim_token is single-use and its first consumption yields the api_key. session_id semantics are left to the schema, which already documents it as coming from the provisioning tool.

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 ('Checks') plus the resource ('an account created with provision_account_and_get_payment_link') and enumerates the possible return states (pending_payment, active, expired, suspended). It ties itself directly to the sibling tool that creates the resource, so it is distinguishable from verify_email, search_leads, and the provisioning tool without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: poll every 15-30 seconds while pending_payment, and make the claim call once active. It does not explicitly state when to use this versus any alternative or what to do on 'expired'/'suspended', so it falls just short of full when/when-not coverage.

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