start_pro_trial

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

With no annotations, the description fully conveys behavioral traits: it returns structured guidance, does not invoke side effects, detects active trials, and surfaces next steps plus purchase URL. This is transparent and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does or does not do.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and critical side-effect disclaimer; the second adds behavioral detail. Highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, non-side-effect nature, detection capability, and what guidance is returned. No missing information for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information; it implicitly covers the lack of parameters by describing the tool's function without mentioning inputs.

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: return structured guidance for starting the 5-day Pro trial. It specifies the resource ('pyobfus Pro trial') and action ('return structured guidance'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it does not invoke the side effect.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it is for guidance only, not for actual trial activation, as the user must run `pyobfus-trial start` in their shell. It also mentions detecting active trial status, which helps an agent decide whether to call this tool.

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