Seller onboarding status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds value by explaining that onboarding is human-on-session and that the tool is a polling read for the charges_enabled flag. This goes beyond the annotations but does not describe the response format or pagination, which is acceptable given the simplicity.

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 two sentences with no redundant words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage condition is stated succinctly. Every word contributes meaning.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the purpose, the condition to wait for, and the human-in-the-loop context. It lacks explicit return value details, but the mention of charges_enabled implies the response shape. This is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the tool.

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 has no parameters, and the schema provides 100% coverage (none). The description references the field 'charges_enabled' which is part of the response, not a parameter, so it adds no confusion. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description is clear.

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 clearly states the specific verb and resource: 'Read-only Stripe Connect onboarding status' and mentions the key condition 'charges_enabled flips true', making it distinct from sibling tools like sellers_get or seller_get_me. It precisely identifies the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'agents wait on this read until charges_enabled flips true before listing', which tells the agent when to use this tool and for what purpose. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context of waiting and the human-on-session note clarifies its role in the onboarding flow.

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