List which alert channels are subscribed to which trigger (a specific budget's spend_threshold, or account-wide event_overage/cost_anomaly). Mirrors GET /api/accounts/:accountId/alert-subscriptions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the core safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the subscription-to-trigger relationship and the mirrored API endpoint, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, account scope, or response shape. This meets but does not exceed the expected bar.
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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose before adding the trigger detail and API mirror. Every clause earns its place, and there is no fluff.
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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation with strong annotations and clear purpose, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. No output schema exists, but the tool's name and description adequately convey that it returns subscription relationships without needing detailed return documentation.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description references the trigger and alert-channel concepts, which helps the agent understand the domain, and schema description coverage is 100% by virtue of having no properties. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.
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 verb and resource: listing which alert channels are subscribed to which trigger, and enumerates the trigger types (budget spend_threshold, account-wide event_overage/cost_anomaly). This clearly separates it from sibling list_alert_channels, which would list channels themselves rather than subscription relationships.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_alert_channels or list_alert_deliveries. The intended use is implied by the resource, but there is no direct statement of conditions, exclusions, or why this should be preferred in a given situation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are organized by resource (budgets, alerts, anomalies, dashboards, cost tags, recommendations), so most are clearly separable. The cost-tag cluster and the dimension/facet listers are the places where an agent could misselect by name, though descriptions resolve the ambiguity.
All tools use snake_case verb_noun names with a clear convention: get_ fetches specific items, list_ enumerates collections, and query_ runs time-bucketed or analytical queries. The pattern holds across all 29 tools with no camelCase or mixed verb styles.
29 tools is well past the typical 3–15 sweet spot and even past the 16–25 heavy band, so the surface feels sprawling despite having few duplicates. Each tool maps to a distinct endpoint, but the sheer number makes it a heavy set for an agent to select from.
The read-side is strong: costs, usage, tags, budgets, alerts, anomalies, dashboards, recommendations, and data health are all queryable. However, the surface is almost entirely read-only, and descriptions reference absent tools like create_budget, create_alert_subscription, create_dashboard, set_dashboard_widgets, and delete_dashboard, creating dead ends. That is a significant gap for a cost-management platform.