subscriptions_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states 'Read-only' and discloses that probe=true performs a live ping that spends a sliver of quota and detects exhausted limits or logout. That side-effect disclosure on an otherwise read operation is exactly the kind of context annotations would miss.

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?

Three tight sentences: what is listed, the probe behavior, and the safety posture. Front-loaded with the primary purpose and no filler.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema status tool, the description covers purpose, the sole parameter's effect, cost, and read-only nature. Slightly more context on the relationship to sibling federation run/cancel tools would make it complete.

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 single 'probe' parameter has 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does: probe=true is defined as a live ping per subscription with a cost warning. This meaning is not derivable from the bare boolean schema.

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+resource: it reports which subscription CLIs (Claude Code / Codex / Kimi Code) are installed. The 'candidates for multi-model council brains without an API key' framing clarifies the domain. It does not differentiate itself from the many federation_* siblings, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

Explains the probe mode and that the tool is read-only, which implies usage, but gives no explicit 'use this when... instead of federation_run_subscriptions / ollama_status' routing. The agent must infer when to pick this over related siblings.

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