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

Annotations already flag idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds that it returns the number of other people wanting the same product on the same plan. However, it does not clearly state that it registers or writes a new want, leaving some side-effect ambiguity. The additional flavor about vendor volume tiers is helpful but not fully precise.

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 short: purpose first, then inputs, then an annual-plans/volume note, then the return value. The sentence 'vendors already have volume tiers and btw brings the volume' is cryptic and slightly distracting, but the overall structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Given full schema coverageщается, an idempotency annotation, and an explicit return value, the core invocation details are present. The ambiguities around 'Annual plans;' and the unexplained 'btw' phrase leave the agent uncertain about billing-cycle constraints and volume mechanics, and the write side-effervis not clearly described.

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 already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters, including the plan enum. The description largely restates what the schema covers (product name or link, plan choices, email) without adding new semantic details, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 and resource: registering that the user wants a software subscription at group pricing. It enumerates the inputs and return value, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like want_gym or want_home, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 intended scenario is implied through 'software subscription at group pricing' and the note about volume tiers, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool over want/want_gym/want_stay or when it should not be used. The 'Annual plans' and 'vendors already have volume tiers' lines hint at context rather than directing tool selection.

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