get_subscription_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information, implying it's a read operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication (though the schema shows an authToken parameter), what permissions are needed, rate limits, or the format of the returned data. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with user 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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core functionality, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 a tool that retrieves user subscription and usage data, the description is incomplete. There's no output schema, and the description doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., subscription tier, usage limits, expiration dates). With no annotations and minimal parameter guidance beyond the schema, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining why authentication is required or how the token is used. Since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately, 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 verb ('Get') and the resource ('the user's subscription status and todo usage'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_kinde_billing' or 'refresh_billing_status', which might also relate to subscription or billing information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for checking current subscription details versus historical billing (as might be in 'get_kinde_billing') or refreshing status (as in 'refresh_billing_status'). There's no mention of prerequisites or context for usage.

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