Create checkout link

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: no charge occurs at call time, payment happens when a human opens the link, the button only goes live after human review, rejection triggers a full refund, and there is a 10-per-10-minutes rate limit. This is exactly the supplemental behavioral detail the annotations cannot express.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place, with the core purpose front-loaded and the less critical review/rate-limit details following. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and a mutation with real-world consequences, the description covers preconditions, side effects, review, refunds, and rate limits well. The remaining gap is the return value — with no output schema, the agent is not told that the result is a checkout URL to hand to the buyer.

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 description coverage is only 33%, so the description carries more burden than usual. 'Confirm size, position, plan, price, text and link' loosely groups the required inputs (width/height, x/y, plan, label, url) but adds no syntax, ranges, or meaning for the eight undocumented fields such as x_px/y_px coordinates on the wall or the color parameters.

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 — 'Creates a Stripe checkout link for a new button' — which is clearly distinct from the read-only siblings (get_wall_status, quote_spot, find_free_spots). It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the create-vs-read distinction is unambiguous from the wording.

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?

It states a concrete precondition ('Confirm size, position, plan, price, text and link with the user before calling') and a frequency constraint ('Call once per purchase: checkout links are rate-limited (10 per 10 minutes)'). It stops short of naming which sibling to use when the agent only needs pricing or availability, so the alternative-routing guidance is absent.

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