hotmart_subscriptions_health_app

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 describes the output (cards, pie chart, data table) but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or disclose other behavioral traits like authentication or rate limits. The visual description helps but lacks full 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 and front-loads the purpose. It uses efficient language and includes practical usage examples. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating output description from usage hints).

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 simple dashboard tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides a clear picture of the output (cards, pie chart, data table) and the kind of queries it addresses. It is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for product_id. The tool description does not add new parameter information beyond the schema, but it implies that the output can be filtered by product. A score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter semantics adequately.

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: providing a health panel for subscriptions with counts by status (active, overdue, canceled) and visual elements like cards, a pie chart, and a data table. It distinguishes itself from siblings like hotmart_subscriptions_list or hotmart_subscriptions_summary_list by focusing on the overview/health aspect.

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 explicitly suggests when to use the tool: for phrases like 'saúde das assinaturas', 'visão geral das assinaturas', and 'quantos assinantes ativos'. This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it.

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