Get Subscription

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; 'Get details' signals a read-only retrieval with no mutation, which is the key safety-relevant behavior. It does not state permissions, error behavior, or whether the resource must exist, but for a simple getter the core behavioral profile is communicated.

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 sentence states the operation and scope with no filler. The phrase 'of a specific subscription product' is front-loaded and 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 simple read operation with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description is nearly complete. The only real gap is lack of explicit guidance about when this differs from list_subscriptions or get_subscription_status, but the singular 'specific' provides enough context for most calls.

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 fully documents product_id and package_name. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable because the baseline for high schema coverage is 3.

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 a specific verb ('get') and a concrete resource ('subscription product') with a singular scope ('a specific'), which makes it clear this tool retrieves one product definition rather than listing subscriptions. It is distinguishable from list_subscriptions at a glance, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 intended use is implied: fetch details for one subscription product when you already know its package name and product ID. However, it does not explicitly contrast with list_subscriptions for enumeration or get_subscription_status for status information, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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