feedbin_get_subscription

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. 'Get' weakly implies a non-mutating read, but nothing states whether authentication is required, what happens for an unknown id, or what the returned subscription contains.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and qualifier front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than genuinely tight writing.

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?

The tool is simple (one integer parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), so a minimal description is defensible. Still, for an unannotated tool it leaves the agent guessing about return shape and failure behavior.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, yet 'by id' merely restates the parameter name 'subscription_id'. It confirms the id identifies a subscription but adds no format, source (e.g. from list_subscriptions), or validity semantics.

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 ('Get') and resource ('one subscription') with a scoping qualifier ('by id'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling feedbin_list_subscriptions. It does not explicitly name that sibling, but the singular/plural contrast is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer feedbin_list_subscriptions instead, and no prerequisites or error conditions. The agent must infer usage purely from the name contrast.

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