Subscribe to character reports

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

The annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: subscriptions are persistent, pull-based, and use current reports as a baseline so later checks only return new reports. This clarifies state-changing behavior without contradicting annotations.

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 with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the baseline behavior follows naturally. Every word earns its place.

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 annotations and schema, the description covers the core persistent-subscription behavior and the polling model well. It omits explicit routing to the check/unsubscribe siblings and repeated-subscription behavior, but those gaps are partially filled by sibling names and the idempotentHint. It is reasonably complete for correct selection and 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?

Schema description coverage is only 20%, so the description needed to compensate. It adds useful semantics for the includeExisting default by explaining that current reports become the baseline, but it does not name includeExisting or clarify the true case. Other parameters like name, server, serverRegion, and accessMode rely on the schema or self-evident naming.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Persist a pull-based subscription.' It also adds the key baseline behavior that distinguishes this tool from siblings like check_character_subscriptions and unsubscribe_character. The title reinforces the resource ('character reports').

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 implies a pull/poll workflow by saying 'later checks return only newly discovered reports,' but it never names or contrasts the sibling tools for checking, listing, or unsubscribing. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, so usage is mostly inferred.

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