check_entitlements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states it is a 'Consulta' (read-only) operation, which implies safety, but it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, side effects, or error behavior. It does not contradict annotations (none exist), but it is minimal—just the basic read nature.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then stating the input requirement. Every sentence contributes information; there is no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not mention the return format or what happens if neither parameter is provided or if both are given. It also doesn't clarify whether 'vivas' (active) subscriptions is a filter that could affect results. For a basic read tool, this is a moderate gap; an agent might call it with incorrect parameters and not know what to expect.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It adds significant value by explaining that 'external_id OR email' are alternatives—one must be provided—and clarifies the purpose of each parameter as a customer identifier. This goes beyond the bare schema which only lists them as optional strings.

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 action ('Consulta') and the resource ('capacidades (entitlements) das assinaturas vivas de um cliente'), making it obvious this retrieves entitlements for a customer's active subscriptions. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_subscriptions or get_subscription by focusing on capabilities/entitlements rather than subscription details, so an agent can select it correctly.

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 input guidance ('Informe external_id OU email') but does not explain when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., list_subscriptions, get_subscription). There is no explicit when-not or alternative recommendation. The context is clear for a specific read operation, but exclusions and comparisons are absent.

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