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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the API endpoint and HTTP GET verb, which reinforces the read-only behavior but offers little additional context about pagination, edge cases, or response semantics. This is acceptable for a simple retrieval tool.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the endpoint reference is a valuable addition without overexplanation.

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 simple, read-only tool with fully documented params and no output schema, the description provides enough information to select and invoke it correctly. It identifies the exact resource and endpoint, and the schema handles parameter details. It could mention response shape or pagination behavior, but the included context meets the needs of this straightforward tool.

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?

The input schema describes all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The API path in the description adds useful meaning by showing that subscription_id is a path parameter, which goes slightly beyond the schema's flat property definitions.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('plan-change schedule for a subscription'), and includes the exact Orb API endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like orb_get_subscription and orb_get_subscription_usage without ambiguity.

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 gives a clear context: use this tool when you need the plan-change schedule for a specific subscription. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the resource-specific language makes the intended use case obvious.

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