Consultar uma assinatura

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description reinforces that it does not alter the subscription and adds context about what data can be tracked (charges, payment, cancellation). No contradictions. It does not disclose further behavioral traits like rate limits or auth, but annotations cover the main safety profile.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, with no extraneous information. Highly efficient.

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 simple read-only query tool with an existing output schema, the description covers the purpose and usage context adequately. It could mention the output format but the schema handles that. The sibling differentiation is implicit. Nearly complete.

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% with the single 'id' parameter described as 'Identificador do recurso.' The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 clearly states it queries subscription data linked to a plan, using the verb 'Consulta' and specifying the resource. It explicitly says 'without modifying the subscription,' which distinguishes it from mutation siblings like update_subscription and cancel_subscription.

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 explicit use cases: tracking recurring charges, payments, or cancellation. It implies not to use for modifications, but does not name alternative tools directly. Given the large sibling list, this guidance is helpful but could be more specific.

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