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 does add one genuinely useful behavioral signal beyond the schema, the explicit "WRITE operation" label, but it omits the material facts for an on-chain mutation: gas/wallet requirements, whether the call is irreversible, what permissions are needed, and whether a transaction hash or plan ID is returned.

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 compact sentences with the operation type front-loaded, and zero filler. It is dense to the point of feeling telegraphic, but nothing is wasted and the key facts come first.

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 an 11-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description is missing only a few things an agent would want.

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 the schema already documents all 11 properties, including the period enum and planType mapping. The description merely restates the period values and the 0/1/2 planType meanings, adding no conditional logic (e.g., when price vs usagePrice is mandatory) beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource: "Create a subscription plan for an agent." That is unambiguous and separable from read-side siblings like actora_subscription_plans or actora_subscription_check, though no sibling is named explicitly as a contrast.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb: an agent would call this when it wants a new plan before subscribing. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of the prerequisite (an existing agentId/identity), and no routing to related tools such as actora_subscription_subscribe or actora_subscription_cancel.

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