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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds important permission/visibility behavior, including the MCP_ADMIN_USERNAMES admin exception, but it does not confirm read-only status or explain limit/pagination behavior.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted words. The permission clarification follows naturally and directly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description adequately covers access control, but for a list tool with undocumented parameters it does not explain pagination limits or the required auth_token, leaving some invocation context 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 0% for all three parameters. The description partially clarifies user_id semantics by stating that admins may consult anyone's subscriptions, but it does not explain limit or auth_token, leaving most parameter meaning undocumented.

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 states a specific operation on a specific resource: retrieving subscription history ('Historique des abonnements'). It is understandable without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as mcp_get_subscription_status or mcp_grant_subscription.

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?

It provides useful access-context guidance: regular users only see their own subscriptions, while MCP admins can view anyone's. However, it does not say when to use this tool instead of related alternatives like mcp_get_subscription_status or mcp_grant_subscription.

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