user_subscription_request_history_get_subscription_re_1r7914

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context about expensive LIKE operators and potential database performance impact, which is genuine behavioral information. However, it omits return format, pagination defaults, authorization requirements, and the relationship to the near-duplicate sibling tool.

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 opens with the endpoint and purpose, which is good front-loading, then adds a warning and a mixed-language pagination note. The Russian sentence ('Пагинация через query-параметры: start, size.') is inconsistent in language and slightly redundant since start/size already appear in the schema. Overall acceptable but not tight.

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 6-parameter filtered listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is only partially complete. It covers the existence of pagination and the risk of filters but leaves parameter semantics and return behavior largely unexplained.

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 only 33%. The description mentions pagination via start and size query parameters, and warns generically about filters, but gives no meaning for filters, sorting, filterModes, or globalFilterMode beyond an implied warning. It does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Get all subscription request history' via a named endpoint. The purpose is unambiguous, though the description doesn't differentiate this tool from its near-identical sibling user_subscription_request_history_get_subscription_re_31zydo or users_get_user_subscription_request_history.

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 when-to-use guidance. The description mentions that filters are 'primarily intended for use by the frontend' and warns about expensive operators, which is a partial usage caveat, but it does not say when to prefer this tool over the sibling history tools or what conditions make it appropriate.

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