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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the bar is lower. The description adds that the payload is specifically the plan-change schedule (and the REST path), but says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or emptiness semantic despite carrying limit/cursor params.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no wasted wording. The trailing API-path sentence is somewhat redundant with the name and title but is compact and harmless.

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, single-required-param tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It clarifies the schedule concept adequately; only the pagination context (limit/cursor use) is left entirely to the schema.

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 subscription_id, limit (1–100, default 20) and cursor are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline 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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource qualifier ('the plan-change schedule for a subscription'), which distinguishes it conceptually from siblings like orb_get_subscription and orb_get_subscription_usage. It does not, however, name any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 only implied by the resource name: read the plan-change schedule when you need to know upcoming plan changes. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over orb_get_subscription or orb_get_upcoming_invoice, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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