acedatacloud_list_applications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must reveal behavioral traits. It only states 'List account subscriptions' which implies a read-only operation but provides no details on pagination, default ordering, filter combination logic, or response structure. The description is too sparse to convey meaningful behavior beyond the basic list action.

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 a single sentence that immediately conveys the core function and key features. It is economical and front-loaded, with no redundant words or filler. It earns full marks for conciseness.

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 7 optional parameters and an output schema present, the description is too minimal to serve as a complete overview. It does not mention the resource is 'applications' (calling them 'account subscriptions'), nor does it explain filter behavior, default values, or relationship to get_application. The rich schema partially compensates, but the natural language context is insufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% for all 7 parameters, so the schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'owner/grantee' (affiliation) and 'multi-value filters' (array-typed params), but this is already evident from the schema. Baseline of 3 applies due to complete schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'account subscriptions', which aligns with the tool name list_applications. It also mentions filter capabilities via 'owner/grantee and multi-value filters', distinguishing it as a list operation with flexible filtering. However, it uses 'account subscriptions' instead of 'applications', which may cause minor ambiguity, but the name resolves this.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_application, create_application, or other list tools. The 'List' verb implies a listing use case, but there is no mention of when not to use it or what distinguishes it from other application-related tools. The absence of exclusions or alternative recommendations leaves the agent to infer usage.

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