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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial nuance: the operation is a soft delete, the record is retained, and it disappears from list_subscriptions. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand the actual side effects.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the usage context is included in a compact second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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?

With a single documented parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering read-only/destructive behavior, the description fully covers the essential details: what the tool does, what happens to the record, and when to invoke it. Nothing critical is missing.

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 100% and the only parameter 'id' is already described as 'ID of the subscription to soft-delete.' The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('soft-delete'), a clear resource ('subscription'), and a distinct behavioral outcome ('leaves list_subscriptions; the record is retained'). This clearly differentiates it from a hard-delete tool and from update_subscription, so the agent knows exactly what it does.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'Use it when the user cancels a service.' It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly. This is more than implied usage.

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