tokportal_get_account_managed_subscription

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

The description adds significant behavioral details beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It explains eventual consistency at period end, the purpose of period_expired, zero-credit quote validity, and the meaning of missing records (grandfathering vs. ineligibility). This fully informs the agent of the tool's behavior.

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 10+ sentences and covers many details, making it thorough but not concise. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, but some sentences are technical and could be streamlined. The structure is logical but could be more compact for agent efficiency.

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 lack of an output schema, the description lists the key return fields (status, current period, rate, unpaid periods, task access, quote) and explains edge cases (grandfathering, missing record, zero-credit quote). It covers timing behavior and eligibility. While it doesn't enumerate all possible status values, it provides enough context for the agent to understand the response structure.

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 already provides a description for the 'id' parameter ('Saved account ID.'). The description adds context about eligibility ('one eligible saved account'), tying the parameter to the tool's business logic. While it doesn't add format details, it clarifies the parameter's role in identifying accounts that can have subscription status, which is a meaningful addition beyond the schema.

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: 'Get TokPortal Coverage status' and enumerates specific return fields (effective status, current period, rate, unpaid periods, task access, reactivation quote). It distinguishes from sibling tools like tokportal_get_account (general account info) and tokportal_reactivate_account_managed_subscription (mutation) by focusing on the subscription status retrieval.

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 context about when to use the tool (e.g., checking eligibility, inferring grandfathering from a 404) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like tokportal_get_account or the subscription mutation tools. It gives implied usage through edge-case explanations but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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