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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, while the description adds valuable context: it discloses the required organisation token, the token_required failure mode, pricing/billing handling, and that the plan does not affect ranking. It stops short of detailed operational notes such as rate limits, but the important behavioral traits are present.

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 front-loads the return contents and then adds billing, contract, and authentication context in a compact paragraph. It is dense but mostly purposeful, with only minor over-specific details such as the contract version.

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 rich annotations, the existing output schema, and zero parameters, the description provides what an agent needs: it explains the returned subscription data, the required organisation token, and the failure mode when the token is missing. Nothing essential is omitted.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter-level semantics to document. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not introduce confusion about inputs.

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 that the tool returns the organisation's demand-data subscription, including plan status, subscribed processes, pending removals, invoices, and payment provider. It is specific about the verb and resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_plan or cancel_creator_plan.

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 mentions the organisation-token requirement and the token_required error, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_plan or cancel_creator_plan. The usage is implied by the name and return description rather than stated.

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