Retrieve complete details of a billing subscription by its ID from Pennylane accounting data. Use it to inspect subscription terms, status, and billing information.
Récupère le détail complet d'un abonnement de facturation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Identifiant de l'abonnement. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'détail complet,' implying the full object is returned, but says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior for a missing id, or pagination/expansion semantics.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that names the action and the returned object with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. For a one-parameter read tool this is largely complete; only failure behavior for an invalid id is unaddressed.
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 coverage is 100% for the single 'id' parameter, whose meaning ('Identifiant de l'abonnement') is already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, type, or lookup-source detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is correct.
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?
States a specific verb ('Récupère') and resource ('le détail complet d'un abonnement de facturation'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish this retrieval-by-id tool from the list/create/update siblings even without naming them. No explicit sibling differentiation, so it stops short of a 5.
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 gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. It does not say to prefer pennylane_list_billing_subscriptions when the id is unknown or pennylane_update_billing_subscription when modifying, leaving routing to inference 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.