owlvin_buy_credits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: it returns a checkout URL that must be opened in a browser, and credits are added automatically after payment. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the payment fails, leaving gaps for a financial transaction tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by parameter details and return instructions. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 the tool's complexity (financial transaction), no annotations, and an output schema (likely for the URL), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and key behaviors, but could improve by addressing authentication, error cases, or linking to sibling tools like owlvin_credits for balance checks, leaving minor gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides detailed semantics for the single parameter 'amount_cents', including valid options with monetary values and bonus credits, which adds significant meaning beyond the basic integer type in the schema. This effectively documents the parameter's purpose and constraints.

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 action ('Get a Stripe Checkout URL') and resource ('to buy platform credits'), distinguishing it from siblings like owlvin_credits (likely checking balance) and owlvin_pricing (likely viewing prices). It precisely communicates the tool's function without being vague or tautological.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to purchase credits via Stripe), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if owlvin_credits should be used first to check balance, leaving some guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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