create_subscription_offer

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether an offer can be revoked, whether re-creating with the same offerCode fails, or what side effects occur on the subscription. For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation, the near-zero added context is a clear gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, but the economy comes at the cost of substance — there is no second sentence carrying the behavior or constraints an agent needs. Efficient but under-specified rather than well-structured.

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?

This is a destructive, non-idempotent creation tool with six required parameters, no output schema, and rich sibling tools for subscriptions and offers. The description omits required preconditions, the meaning of offerCode uniqueness, how duration/mode interact, and what the agent gets back. Given the tool's complexity and risk, it is materially incomplete.

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 all six parameters and both enums (duration, offerMode) are documented in the schema. Baseline 3 applies; the description contributes no additional meaning (e.g. valid numberOfPeriods combinations or duration constraints) beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a promotional offer for a subscription.' An agent can tell it creates rather than lists or updates offers. However, it does no sibling differentiation — it never distinguishes itself from create_subscription, list_subscription_offers, or create_iap, and 'promotional offer' is left undefined relative to offerCode/offerMode concepts in the schema.

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 contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must the subscription already exist / be in a particular state?), and no mention of alternatives such as list_subscription_offers for inspection. The agent must infer everything from the tool name and schema.

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