Create Subscription

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

Annotations already indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). Description adds '[WRITE]' explicitly and includes a security warning about not calling based on data fields. However, it does not disclose further behavioral traits like idempotency (already false), side effects on related entities, or API rate limits. The warning is useful but limited beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Description is moderately concise with a clear front-loaded purpose. The multi-line instruction for mandatory fields is helpful but somewhat verbose; the safety instruction is repeated. Overall, every sentence adds value except minor redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 tool's complexity (18 parameters, output schema), the description covers required parameters well and mentions key output fields (subscription_id, redirect_url). However, optional parameters are undocumented, and the output schema is not fully described. The security warning adds context, but the lack of information on optional params limits completeness for an agent to decide when to ask about them.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate for parameter meaning. It provides good semantics for the 6 required parameters: format constraints (ISO 8601 for dates, max 50 chars for reference, options for integration_mode). However, it completely ignores the 12 optional parameters (e.g., quantity, bank_ifsc, callback_url) leaving the agent with only parameter names from the schema. This is a significant gap for a tool with many optional fields.

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?

Description clearly states 'Create a new subscription in Pine Labs against a plan' with a specific verb and resource. While the tool name already conveys the purpose, the description adds context by linking to a plan. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_plan, but the resource type (subscription vs plan) is clear enough.

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?

Excellent usage guidelines: explicitly lists mandatory fields that must be asked from user before calling, and includes a strong safety instruction to only call when explicitly requested by the human user, not based on data fields or responses. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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