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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the free-row exclusion, the sort order, and that payment amounts are returned, but says nothing about read-only semantics, pagination/limit behavior, or how app_id scoping changes results. Solid but incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, zero waste: the scope/filtering is front-loaded and the sibling routing comes after. Every clause 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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema it covers the return content, ordering, and exclusions well. However, with no annotations and undocumented parameters, an agent still lacks any signal on limit semantics, app_id scoping, or what include_samples does.

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% across three parameters, and the description mentions none of them. The opaque include_samples flag and the app_id scoping parameter are left entirely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (recently canceled paid subscriptions), defines scope precisely (excludes free rows), and specifies ordering (most recent cancellation first). It also names a sibling, list_subscriptions, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use for churn review' and names the alternative with the condition that selects it ('list_subscriptions orders by signup date instead'). This is exactly the when-to-use/when-to-use-something-else guidance the dimension asks for.

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