clawdate_subscription

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'check' which implies read-only, but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or any potential restrictions. Minimal transparency beyond the verb.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with all key information: the action and the data points provided. No extraneous words, perfectly concise.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description lists the specific data components (tier, limits, usage, quota) which is reasonably complete. It could mention the return format or if there are any pagination implications, but for a simple check it is adequate.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is trivially 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information because none exist, which is acceptable but not above baseline.

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?

Description includes a specific verb ('check') and resource ('subscription tier, daily limits, current usage, and remaining quota'), clearly indicating what information is retrieved. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like clawdate_stats that might also report usage, so it loses one point.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clawdate_stats or clawdate_me. There are no exclusions or context for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and description.

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