marketplace_get_rebilling_config_for_app

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a scope clarification ('app subscription and usage plans') but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as return format, pagination, or required permissions. Since the bar is lower with annotations, this is acceptable but not enhanced.

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 a single sentence with the key action ('Get rebilling config') front-loaded. It is concise and free of filler, though it could have included a brief note on the optional locationId default without adding clutter.

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 low-complexity read operation with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not explain what the rebilling config contains or the shape of the response, which could be relevant for an agent expecting to use the result. This is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 (appId, locationId) have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any further parameter-level meaning or clarify interactions between parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('rebilling config for an app subscription and usage plans'), which is unambiguous. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling marketplace tools like marketplace_get_specific_charge, the resource scope is distinct enough that an agent can infer the intended target.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., marketplace_get_charges or saas_api_get_saas_plan). It does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer suitability from the name alone.

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