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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does more than most: 'Public read' covers the auth/safety profile and 'Resolves off-chain fiat/x402 records first (resolveAccess)' discloses a non-obvious internal resolution ordering that an agent could not guess. It stops short of saying what happens when no off-chain record exists (on-chain fallback?) or how misses are reported.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core check before the resolution detail, with no wasted preamble. 'Same rail as the in-app subscription flow' is the weakest sentence, adding orientation but little operational value.

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?

This is a no-output-schema tool whose description never indicates what a result looks like, a boolean versus a subscription object with plan/expiry fields. For a lookup tool the answer shape is central, and its absence leaves a real gap even though the resolution-path and access details are covered.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including 'Centralized agent ID (negative)'. The description only restates that same constraint rather than adding format, range, or normalization meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a wallet has an active subscription for a centralized agent (negative agentId).' The parenthetical 'negative agentId' narrows the scope enough to separate it in spirit from the sibling actora_subscription_check, but it never names that sibling or states the contrast explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than declared.

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 establishes the applicable context (centralized agents, negative agentId) and 'Public read' implicitly signals no credentials are needed. It gives no when-not-to-use guidance and does not route non-central lookups to actora_subscription_check or actora_subscription_detail, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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