sherweb_subscriptions_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what info is returned but doesn't disclose what happens on invalid/missing IDs, whether it requires authentication/permissions, cost implications, or any failure modes. For a read tool with zero annotations, this is a meaningful gap in behavioral context.

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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the noun ('detailed information about a specific subscription') and lists relevant data categories. Zero wasted words, appropriately sized for the tool's scope.

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 2-parameter read tool, the description covers the essential 'what it returns.' However, with no annotations and no output schema, there is room to disclose the return format or error behavior. The tool itself is low complexity, so this is acceptable but not outstanding.

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 both parameters (customerId and subscriptionId) are documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema field names, which is the baseline-3 situation. It doesn't clarify relationships (e.g., that subscriptionId is scoped to the customerId) but doesn't need to given the schema already documents each field.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific subscription.' It specifies what's included (product details, pricing, quantity, renewal dates). It's easily distinguishable from siblings like subscriptions_list (lists all) and subscriptions_change_quantity (mutates). Minor missing: doesn't explicitly distinguish from the analogous customers_get despite the pattern being obvious.

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 implies it's for retrieving a single subscription by ID, contrasting implicitly with subscriptions_list. However, there's no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing the subscription ID from a prior list call), and no exclusion of cases where this tool shouldn't be used. The usage context is inferable but not stated.

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