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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description adds meaningful privacy guarantees: it never returns email, provider tokens, OAuth URLs, or provider payloads. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps an agent reason about safe usage.

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 tight sentences: the first states the action and inputs, the second lists return content and explicit exclusions. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 an output schema present, the return-value details are already covered. The description adds the key safety exclusions and the token requirement. It is mostly complete for a simple read-only status tool, though parameter semantics could be richer.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that statusToken is a 'limited status token' and contrasts it with provider tokens, but it does not explain where trialId comes from or how the two parameters relate. The parameter meaning is only partially inferred.

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 identifies the resource (live trial status) and action (get/resume via status token), and the second sentence details what is returned. It is distinguishable from siblings like start_live_trial, though 'Resume a trial' is slightly less direct than 'Get status'.

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 implies usage when a limited status token is available and the caller needs trial status. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools such as start_live_trial, get_checkout_status, or get_onboarding_guide, leaving the selection logic to inference.

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