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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds real consequence context: changing the date means the customer is actually charged on that new date. It also names the underlying PUT path. It stops short of noting date-format or past-date constraints.

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, front-loaded sentences with the mutation flag first and the consequence second. The trailing endpoint path is of marginal use to an agent but does no harm.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose and consequence but omits date format, timezone, and whether backdating or constraints on the new date exist — details an agent would need to avoid a bad call.

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 all three parameters are already documented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, such as expected date format or whether past dates are accepted, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: changes the date a subscription is next billed and its order created. This clearly separates it from siblings like smartrr_skip_order (which skips one cycle) and smartrr_retry_bill.

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 'WRITE:' prefix signals a mutation and 'Customer-facing' implies caution, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus skip_order, pause_subscription, or resume_subscription when the intent is to move a billing date.

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