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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, non-destructive, open-world call, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: page sizes of 100-10000 and the fact that next_page is only set when a full page came back, which tells the agent how to detect the end of results. It still doesn't say what happens when the account simply has no subscriptions.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, leading with what is returned before the pagination rules and the endpoint. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-shape burden by stating it returns ids only and explaining next_page. Combined with the fully documented two-parameter schema, an agent has what it needs to enumerate subscriptions. Only the omission of any tie-in to the search sibling keeps it from being fully complete.

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 100%, with page and row_size both documented including defaults and bounds, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description restates the 100-10000 row_size range but adds no new syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already carries.

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 the resource (subscription/contact ids) and the ordering (newest first), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling that provides full records by pointing at trumpia_get_subscription. It stops just short of a 5 because the listing verb is inherited from the name/title rather than restated, and the neighboring trumpia_search_subscriptions is never addressed.

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 gives an explicit routing rule: use trumpia_get_subscription when details are needed, since this returns ids only. That is clear context for one alternative, but with trumpia_search_subscriptions in the sibling set, the agent gets no guidance on when a filtered search is preferable to a plain paged listing.

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