Create paid account (no trial, card required)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses immediate billing, first charge on the next billing run, card verification with the clearing provider, token persistence, and that the raw card is never stored. It also clarifies graceful timezone/country handling, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: core behavior, mandatory card semantics, use-case trigger, comparison with the trial sibling, and security guarantee. It is front-loaded with the most decision-relevant fact (straight to paid, no trial) and contains no filler.

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?

Given a complex 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is unusually complete: it covers billing behavior, security, error tolerance, and invocation context. Minor gaps remain, such as defaults for `plan`/`payEach`/`currency` and what the tool returns, but these do not severely hinder 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 coverage is 56%, and the description adds significant meaning for the critical `card` parameter: it is mandatory, verified, tokenized, and not stored. It also explains companyInfo.timezone/country tolerance. However, semantics for `currency`, `simInfo`, `useCoexisting`, and `useFreeNumber` remain vague or unaddressed, with only a reference to 'same number options' as the trial 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new organization that goes STRAIGHT TO PAID — no free trial month.' It explicitly contrasts with the trial path, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools like gambot_create_trial_account.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Use this when an AI agent has the customer's card and should provision a paying account in one call.' It identifies the card requirement clearly, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or point to an alternative like gambot_add_payment_method for cases where a card should be added later.

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