apps__subscription_grace_period__get

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

No contradiction: 'Read' and the GET method align with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. Beyond that, the description only adds the endpoint path; it does not disclose what happens when no grace period is configured or what auth scope is required, so the annotations carry the safety profile and the description adds little behavioral context.

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?

An eight-word sentence with the action verb front-loaded and a compact bracketed endpoint. Every token earns its place; there is zero filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

Complexity is low (one fully documented parameter, safety covered by annotations), so the description is nearly sufficient. The gap is that with no output schema, the description gives no hint about the response shape — whether the grace period is a duration, a date, or in what units — and offers no domain context about when a grace period applies.

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% — the single id parameter is fully documented ('App name, bundle ID (com.example.app) or numeric Apple ID'). The description contributes no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Read') and names the exact resource ('subscription grace period for an app'), then confirms it with the endpoint [GET /v1/apps/{id}/subscriptionGracePeriod]. Among hundreds of siblings there is no other grace-period tool, so the resource name alone distinguishes it from apps__get and apps__subscription_groups__list.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb+resource ('Read the subscription grace period') but never made explicit — no when-to-use conditions, no exclusions, no named alternatives. For a single-resource getter with no competing sibling this is acceptable, yet the guidance is entirely implicit.

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