asc_finalize_subscription

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose non-obvious behavior: the exact step ordering, that intro offers are created per territory, that `period` is silently ignored (legacy bug), and the implication from 'store_setup does every product idempotently' that this tool is not fully idempotent. It still omits permission/approval requirements and re-run safety.

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?

Front-loads the action and the key ordering, and the sentences earn their place, but the arrow notation, nested parentheses, and inline JSON make it dense and harder to parse quickly than it needs to be.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers ordering, the alternative tool, and the trickiest parameters. However, for a 7-parameter mutation with no annotations it leaves gaps around approval_id, auth requirements, and failure/re-run behavior.

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 must compensate. It richly documents the difficult parameters (intro format with a concrete example, period being ignored, offer-product null behavior) but leaves sub_id, name, description, usd_price, and especially approval_id entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (FINALIZE) and resource (one subscription), plus the internal step order (localization → availability → price → intro offer). It partially distinguishes itself from the crowded sibling set by naming store_setup as the preferred alternative and calling out how offer products differ.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Prefer store_setup, which does every product idempotently,' and gives the branching rule for spec products vs offer products. Clear when-to-use guidance, though it lacks exclusions for other finalize-adjacent siblings like asc_submit_for_review.

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