subscriptions_get_all_subscriptions

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the GET method, implies the endpoint is protected (auth required), and identifies start/size as pagination query parameters, but it does not describe rate limits, sorting behavior, or response characteristics beyond the schema.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose with the GET path and action. The 'Tags: [Protected] Subscriptions Controller' line is largely boilerplate metadata, and the final Russian sentence partially repeats pagination information already implied by the schema, but overall there is little waste.

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 read-only collection endpoint with two optional pagination parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what is returned at a high level and how to paginate, but it omits details about the response structure, whether all subscriptions system-wide are returned, and any authorization constraints beyond the 'Protected' tag.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the size and start parameters, including defaults, bounds, and meaning. The description adds only that pagination is done via these query parameters, which is marginal beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 subscriptions' with the underlying GET path. It is clear the tool retrieves a collection, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling subscription-retrieval tools like subscriptions_get_subscription_by_uuid or subscriptions_get_subscription_by_username.

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 alternatives are provided. The description only asserts what the endpoint does and notes that pagination uses the start and size query parameters, leaving the agent to infer when this collection listing is preferable to sibling retrieval endpoints.

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