subscriptions__mrr_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns aggregate data and does not expose identifiers, which is helpful. However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, or error behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states what it returns, and the second clarifies constraints. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the output components (count, MRR, plan mix) and a key constraint (no identifiers). However, it could mention authentication requirements or data freshness for full completeness.

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 tool has no parameters, and the description does not add parameter-specific semantics. Schema coverage is 100% trivially, so no additional param info is needed. The description does not mention optional filters that could exist, but for a zero-parameter tool, this is acceptable.

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 clearly states what the tool returns: aggregate active live-mode subscription count, MRR minor units, and plan mix. It also specifies that no account or Stripe identifiers are exposed, which distinguishes it from tools that return detailed subscription data.

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 usage for high-level subscription metrics but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings like 'subscriptions__usage_summary' or 'subscriptions__subscription_status'. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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