payments_list_subscriptions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, filtering details, or response format. It does not contradict annotations, so a 3 is appropriate given the annotation coverage.

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 only two words, which is extremely brief. While conciseness is generally positive, this level of under-specification means the description fails to convey any meaningful content. It is not a model of efficiency but rather a lack of specification, aligning with a 2 rather than a higher score.

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?

Despite the rich schema and annotations, the description is too thin to be considered complete. It does not explain what subscriptions are, how the list is paginated, what filters are available, or what the response includes (no output schema is present). For a tool with 13 optional parameters, this is inadequate contextual guidance.

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 all 13 parameters having descriptive text. The description 'List Subscriptions' adds no information about parameters, but the baseline of 3 is correct when the schema handles the documentation. No extra meaning is provided beyond what the schema already states.

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 'List Subscriptions' is a tautology of the tool name payments_list_subscriptions, offering no additional specificity about the domain (payments) or the type of subscriptions. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like payments_list_orders or payments_list_transactions, and there is no mention of filtering capabilities or scope.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus similar listing tools such as payments_get_subscription_by_id or payments_list_transactions. The description gives no context about intended use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema alone.

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