Pay: status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: it does not say what the status reflects, whether it requires an existing Connect account, or what happens if none exists. It essentially restates the title.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded after the verb. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably under-specified rather than deliberately terse.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of conveying what comes back, and it does not: 'status' could mean onboarding state, capabilities, charges/payouts enabled, or balance. For a zero-param read tool this is minimal but survivable, leaving a clear gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning, though it also does not clarify that the account is inferred from the calling context rather than passed in.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Show Stripe Connect account status'. That is far more informative than the title 'Pay: status' and lets an agent distinguish it from pay_payments and pay_methods. It does not explicitly contrast itself with pay_connect, but the read-vs-configure split is reasonably inferable.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is offered. The description never says whether this must be called before pay_payments, whether a connected account is required first via pay_connect, or what condition makes an agent reach for this tool. The read-only intent is left to inference.

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