get_subscription_request_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious context beyond annotations: the filters run expensive LIKE-style operators server-side and misuse can degrade database performance. It stops short of disclosing defaults, result contents, or 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the performance caveat and the endpoint marker. Every sentence carries information and there is no filler, though the caveat runs slightly long relative to the minimal core statement.

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, zero-required-parameter list endpoint this is passable, and annotations carry the safety burden. But with four of six parameters (including nested filter/sorting objects) undocumented anywhere and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without enough to construct a correct filters or filterModes payload.

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 only 33% – size and start are documented, while filters, sorting, filterModes, and globalFilterMode are undocumented in both schema and description. The description only tells the agent that filters are costly; it never explains the id/value filter structure, filterModes, or globalFilterMode, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Get all subscription request history') and the '[READ] GET /api/subscription-request-history/' route confirms the scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_user_subscription_request_history or get_subscription_request_history_stats, so an agent must infer the 'all vs per-user' distinction.

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 an actionable caution about the filters ('primarily intended for use by the frontend', 'expensive operators such as LIKE'), which tells the agent when not to lean on filtering. However, it never states when to choose this tool over the near-identical sibling get_user_subscription_request_history, leaving the primary routing decision to inference.

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