Get subscription

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, covering the full safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that – no 404/not-found behavior, no note on the account/include side effects. It effectively restates the structured 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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple ID-based lookup, though it is arguably too terse to carry any extra meaning.

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 read-only getter with rich annotations and a fully-documented schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits any note on not-found handling or what the include expansion controls, but the structured fields cover most needs.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the id, account, and include parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format or semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (Retrieves) and resource (subscription) keyed by ID, which is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like list_subscriptions or get_subscription_item, leaving the agent to infer scope.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when a subscription should be fetched versus listed, and no alternatives named. The agent gets no help choosing between this and list_subscriptions.

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