Subscription Health

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds context about the report's contents (metrics), but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or data freshness. With annotations covering read-only, this is adequate but minimal extra value.

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 concise, consisting of two efficient sentences. The first sentence states purpose and lists key metrics; the second provides example queries. It is front-loaded with the action and key output. Minor improvement could be structuring the list of metrics more clearly, but overall it earns its space.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the main metrics (active count, MRR, etc.). However, it does not explain how the optional parameters (date range, currency) affect these metrics, nor does it describe the structure of the response (e.g., single object vs. array). This leaves some ambiguity for an agent trying to parse the output.

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?

All three parameters (toDate, currency, fromDate) are fully described in the input schema (coverage 100%). The description adds no further meaning about these parameters, such as how they affect output or examples. Baseline is 3 for high 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 clearly states 'Get a health report for your subscription business' and lists specific metrics (active count, MRR, etc.). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the examples ('what is my MRR?') help clarify purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'hyros_get_subscriptions' which may return raw subscription data, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides 'Perfect for' examples that imply use cases (MRR, active subscribers). However, it does not specify when not to use this tool (e.g., when raw subscription data is needed) or mention alternatives such as 'hyros_get_subscriptions'. The guidance is implicit and lacks explicit exclusions.

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