communications_get_subscription_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose whether it's safe, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or handles errors. For a tool with two required parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a straightforward tool. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret the status, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a batch query tool with no structured support, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'subscription status for multiple contacts', which hints that 'contactIds' should be an array of contact identifiers and 'subscriptionId' identifies a specific subscription, but it doesn't clarify format, constraints, or examples. This partial compensation is insufficient for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Get' and resource 'subscription status for multiple contacts', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'communications_get_preferences' and 'communications_get_subscription_definitions' by focusing on contact-level status rather than definitions or preferences. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar batch operations in other domains (e.g., 'calls_batch_read'), so it's not a perfect 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use this versus 'communications_get_preferences' or 'communications_get_subscription_definitions', nor does it specify prerequisites like required permissions or valid subscription/contact IDs. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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