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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: this returns computed aggregates (monthly/annual totals, upcoming renewals, underused subscriptions) rather than raw subscription records, which shapes what the agent can do with the result.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then enumerates the payload, with no filler. The parenthetical examples (Netflix, salle de sport) aid disambiguation at negligible cost.

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?

With only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so at a summary level (totals, renewals, underused items). It is nearly complete, though a note on whether the list is limited or sorted would close the remaining gap.

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% and both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the default main space and the meaning of include_inactive. The description adds nothing about space_id or include_inactive, 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?

The description names a specific verb-less but unambiguous listing operation on a concrete resource ('Abonnements suivis … d'un espace') and enumerates the contents returned (total mensuel/annuel, prochains renouvellements, abonnements peu utilisés). It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as dandori_cancel_subscription or dandori_list_transactions, so an agent must infer that this is the read-side counterpart to the cancellation tool.

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 enumerated summary contents (reviewing renewals, spotting underused subscriptions), but there is no explicit 'use this when…' statement and no pointer to alternatives like dandori_cancel_subscription for acting on a subscription. The agent can infer the intent but is given no routing rules.

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