get_product_subscription_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the underlying API call (GET /v1/product_subscriptions/{subscription_id}) and the return structure, which implies read-only behavior. The word '查詢' (query) also signals a non-mutating operation. However, it does not mention error handling or authorization, leaving some gaps, but for a simple GET tool this is acceptable.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, API call, and return structure. Each section is concise and relevant, with no redundant wording. The first line clearly states the core function, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the purpose, usage context, underlying API, and return fields. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and understand the output. No critical information appears to be missing.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for subscription_id, including a helpful note that it comes from list_product_subscriptions. The description does not add further parameter semantics beyond what the schema states. Since schema coverage is high, a 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 tool's function: '取得單一商品訂閱的完整詳情' (get complete details of a single product subscription). It specifies the verb, resource, and scope (single vs. list), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_product_subscriptions. The mention of included fields further clarifies its purpose.

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 explicit usage context: '適合客服場景或個別訂閱狀態確認' (suitable for customer service scenarios or individual subscription status confirmation). It clearly implies this is for individual lookups but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Since sibling list_product_subscriptions exists, a direct comparison would have earned a 5.

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