get_kinde_billing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves billing information and subscription status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify authentication requirements beyond what's in the schema, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what specific data is returned. This leaves significant gaps for a tool handling sensitive billing data.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality, though it could be slightly more structured if it included brief usage context.

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 complexity of billing/subscription data, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what specific billing information is returned, how subscription status is represented, or any dependencies on other tools like 'save_token'. For a tool with sensitive financial implications, this lacks necessary detail.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'authToken' documented as optional. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as token format or where it might be saved. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Kinde billing information and subscription status'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_subscription_status' or 'refresh_billing_status', which appear related.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_subscription_status' or 'refresh_billing_status'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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