subscribe_info

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 only says 'Plan... with cost and exact calls', which is vague about side effects (read vs write). It does not disclose whether a subscription is created, if there are costs incurred, or any authentication or rate limits. Minimal behavioral transparency.

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 concise: a short introductory sentence followed by a clear, bullet-like list for each parameter. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 has 3 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the basics but lacks behavioral context (e.g., whether it's a read or write operation). An output schema exists but is not referenced, though that is acceptable per guidelines. The description does not address the presence of many sibling tools, leaving potential confusion about when to use this one.

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 description compensates for 0% schema coverage by providing clear explanations for each parameter: feed_name with examples, condition with enum mapping (0-3), and days with range. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, making it easy for an agent to understand parameter usage.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Plan' and resource 'Pythia Events subscription', clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It mentions cost and exact calls, providing further clarity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_subscriptions (listing) and get_events_info (retrieving info).

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 through examples and parameter definitions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not contrast with list_subscriptions or get_events_info. Usage context is implicit, not explicit.

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