tokportal_get_account_managed_subscription

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds critical behavioral details: the recorded_status lag at period_end, validity of zero-credit quotes, and the multiple interpretations of a missing record (grandfathered vs. not eligible vs. not yet delivered). This fully informs the agent of edge cases and temporal behaviors.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then covers nuances efficiently. While it is longer than strictly necessary, every sentence adds value and no content is redundant. Could be slightly tighter but is well-structured for an agent to parse.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return fields effectively and covers important edge cases (grandfathering, 404 interpretation, period transitions). It is nearly complete but could mention the data type or structure of the 'reactivation quote' for full clarity.

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 single parameter 'id' has 100% schema description coverage ('Saved account ID.'). The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter format or constraints beyond mentioning 'one eligible saved account', which is implicit. With high schema coverage, a baseline 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 retrieves TokPortal Coverage status and lists the specific data returned (status, period, rate, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tokportal_reactivate_account_managed_subscription and tokportal_cancel_account_managed_subscription, which are mutation operations, making the read-only purpose unambiguous.

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 substantial context about when to use this tool, including handling of grandfathering, 404 responses, and timing nuances at period boundaries. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives beyond the implicit distinction from reactivation/cancellation tools, and could be more direct about situations where this tool should not be used.

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