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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the underlying API route (GET /subscriptions), the fact that filtering goes through `params`, and the return shape { data:[...], pagination }, which is valuable since there is no output schema.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Purpose, endpoint, and return contract are delivered in order of importance, and every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the endpoint, filter entry point, and return shape, which is most of what an agent needs. It slightly under-serves on guidance about pagination defaults and filter values, but the schema covers the numeric paging controls.

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 coverage is 100%, so the three parameters (limit, offset, params) are already well documented in the schema. The description only adds 'Filter via `params`', which restates schema content without adding syntax or accepted-filter detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (List) and resource (subscriptions), and the parenthetical '(recurring donations)' clarifies the domain concept. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like raisely_list_donations, but the resource distinction is clear enough for selection.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives such as raisely_get_subscription for a single record or raisely_list_donations for one-off gifts. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the '(recurring donations)' aside.

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