get_subscription

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: an edition/license/permission dependency and the fact that some routes return 404 or empty lists, which is behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the availability caveat, with no filler. Slightly clipped phrasing ('get subscription' lowercase) but every sentence 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?

For a no-param read with no output schema, the availability caveat is the key missing piece and it is present. What is absent is any indication of what the returned subscription data looks like, which matters since no output schema exists to describe it.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is fully documented, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for; the 4 baseline 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 states a verb and resource ('get subscription') plus the canonical endpoint, so the basic operation is identifiable. However, it doesn't say what a subscription object contains or distinguish this from siblings like refresh_subscription, activate_subscription, or delete_subscription, leaving purpose only minimally viable.

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?

It gives conditional context — availability depends on edition, license, and permissions, and Community routes may 404 or return empty — which helps an agent predict failure modes. But it never states when to call this versus refresh_subscription or activate_subscription, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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