get_subscription

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it explains what the 'include' parameter does (e.g., 'next_transaction' includes prorated charges, 'recurring_transaction_details' shows expected billing), which helps the agent understand response behavior. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by specific usage details for the 'include' parameter. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, read-only operation), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, parameter usage, and behavioral details. However, with no output schema, it doesn't describe the return format (e.g., subscription object structure), leaving a minor gap. Annotations help by indicating safety.

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%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds semantic meaning by explaining the purpose and options of the 'include' parameter (e.g., 'next_transaction' includes unbilled charges), which goes beyond the schema's enum list. This compensates well, though it doesn't detail 'subscriptionId' further.

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 the tool's purpose: 'retrieve a subscription from Paddle by its ID.' This is a specific verb ('retrieve') and resource ('subscription'), but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_subscriptions' or 'get_customer' (which might also retrieve subscription data). The description is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 implied usage guidance by explaining the 'include' parameter for related entities, suggesting when to use this tool for detailed subscription data. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like 'list_subscriptions' for bulk data or other 'get_' tools for different resources. The guidance is contextual but not comprehensive.

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