wb_jam_subscription

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a read-style state check returning active/expiry and implies no side effects by being a precondition check, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, data types, or response format.

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 short clauses front-load the core state information and usage context. The Russian parenthetical is a minor redundancy but does not bloat the description; every element earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what the tool returns, when to call it, and implies how to interpret the result. It lacks exact serialization details such as boolean/string values for 'active' and date format for 'expiry', but these are not essential for invoking the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The schema coverage is trivially complete, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter detail, matching the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 uses the verb 'Check' and identifies the resource ('WB Jam subscription state'), specifying the two key fields (active, expiry). It clearly conveys this is a status/precondition tool, though it does not name a specific sibling tool to differentiate from.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Check before Jam-only tools', giving clear invocation context. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but for a state pre-check the intended usage is sufficiently clear.

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