get_user_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 the useful behavioral constraint that only the most recent 24 records are returned, which the annotations do not convey. It stops short of explaining auth requirements, pagination, or whether truncation to 24 is fixed.

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?

Front-loaded with the payload ('recent 24 records') and kept to a single compact line. The '[READ] GET /api/...' suffix is mildly redundant with annotations but confirms the HTTP verb, so it earns its place as a low-cost addition.

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 simple one-param read tool with annotations covering safety, this is nearly adequate. However there is no output schema, so the description could reasonably say more about the returned record shape or the fixed 24-record cap's implications; the endpoint-only description leaves the consumer inferring that.

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%, but there is only one parameter and its meaning (a user id) is evident from the URL template and property name. The description adds the :userId path binding but no format or range detail beyond the schema's number/exclusiveMinimum constraint. Baseline 3 given the single obvious parameter.

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 ('Get') plus resource ('user subscription request history') and even the result limit ('recent 24 records'). This distinguishes it from the sibling get_subscription_request_history (global) and get_subscription_request_history_stats, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative routing. The reader must infer from the name that this is the per-user variant of the request-history tools. The sibling namespace is large enough that explicit routing would have helped.

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