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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the return payload (signal score, last fired timestamp, alert count, configuration), which goes slightly beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral aspects like pagination, auth requirements, or side effects. With annotations in place, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only essential details. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second enumerates the return values and the usage context. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only get operation with one parameter, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description is complete. It states the operation, usage context, and key return fields. There are no missing elements that would hinder correct tool invocation.

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 schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter `subscriptionId` described as 'UUID returned by intelligence.subscribe.' The description's phrase 'by ID' is consistent with the schema but does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is correct because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Check the status of an intelligence subscription by ID.' It clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like subscribe/delete by focusing on status retrieval. It also enumerates the return fields, reinforcing 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 context on when to use the tool: 'Use after intelligence.subscribe to verify a subscription is active.' This tells the agent the typical workflow placement. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but there are no obvious alternative tools for this specific status check, and the guidance is clear enough.

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