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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explicitly stating that changes are not available through MCP and that a human performs them in the web app, providing clear behavioral expectations. This additional context fully discloses the tool's limitations.

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 three sentences, each adding distinct value: what it returns, the field semantics, and the access restriction. It is structured logically and avoids redundancy, making it concise for the information conveyed.

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 there is no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what data will be returned (plan, status, seats, scheduled changes) and clarifies the distinction between effectiveTier and planTier. It also notes the prerequisite of organization context, making the tool self-contained for an agent.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of key returned fields (effectiveTier vs subscribed planTier), which helps users understand the data even though no input parameters exist. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('the organization's subscription'), and specifies the key details it returns (plan, status, seats, scheduled changes). It distinguishes itself from sibling get_* tools by focusing on subscription-specific information such as effectiveTier vs subscribed planTier.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires organization context') and clarifies the read-only nature, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions for when to choose this tool over siblings. The purpose is specific enough that usage is clear, though explicit differentiation is absent.

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