Pay: status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' is partly redundant, but the description goes further by explaining that the account is the destination of end users' card payments and that status is expressed as discrete onboarding/charges/payouts flags. It does not discuss auth requirements or freshness of the status, so it is good rather than exhaustive.

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?

Three compact sentences, none wasted: definition, field inventory, safety/behavior cue, and fallback routing. The most decision-relevant content (what it returns, when to go elsewhere) is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by naming the three status fields. For a zero-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, nothing an agent needs to select or call it is missing.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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 and resource ('Show Stripe Connect account status') and enumerates exactly what is surfaced: account id, onboarding completeness, charges/payouts enabled. It distinguishes itself from the sibling `pay_connect` by framing itself as the read side of the same domain.

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?

Provides an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: 'If there is no account or onboarding is unfinished, use `pay_connect`.' This is exactly the routing an agent needs and leaves nothing to inference.

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