mhlb_get_subscription_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: true, covering the safety and non-exhaustive nature. The description adds value by stating exactly what the returned configuration contains ('whether recurring ordering is on, and its terms'), providing concrete output expectations beyond the annotation flags. This is useful for an agent deciding whether the tool meets its needs.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then specifies the two key components. There is no fluff, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary detail. It efficiently conveys all needed information in minimal text.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description fully covers what an agent needs to know to call it correctly: it retrieves account-level subscription configuration and indicates the kind of data returned. The annotations cover safety and openness, so nothing is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so the description cannot add parameter-specific details. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate because the description does not need to compensate for missing schema information and it already clarifies the tool's output focus, which is relevant to understanding the call.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving the account's subscription configuration, specifying exactly what it covers (recurring ordering status and terms). This distinguishes it from siblings like mhlb_list_subscriptions (which likely list individual subscriptions) and mhlb_set_subscription_enabled (which modifies settings). The verb 'Get' and resource 'account's subscription configuration' form a specific, unambiguous purpose.

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?

While the description implies this is for reading account-level subscription settings, it does not explicitly contrast it with related siblings such as mhlb_list_subscriptions or mhlb_set_subscription_enabled. There is no 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' guidance, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name and sibling list. This leaves room for confusion.

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