communications_get_subscription_definitions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get all' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this returns all definitions at once or uses pagination, what format the definitions are returned in, whether authentication is required, or any rate limits. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for what appears to be a straightforward retrieval operation and is perfectly front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 apparent simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. It doesn't explain what 'subscription definitions' actually are in this context, doesn't address the undocumented 'archived' parameter, and provides no behavioral context. For a read operation with minimal structured metadata, this is the bare minimum that could work.

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?

With only 1 parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't mention the 'archived' parameter at all. However, since there's only one parameter and the tool appears to be a simple retrieval operation, the description's omission is less critical. The baseline for 0 parameters would be 4, but with 1 undocumented parameter, this slightly reduces the score from what it could be.

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 action ('Get all') and resource ('subscription definitions for the portal'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'communications_get_subscription_status' or 'communications_get_preferences', which prevents a perfect score.

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. With sibling tools like 'communications_get_subscription_status' and 'communications_get_preferences' available, there's no indication of when this specific 'get definitions' operation is appropriate versus those other communications-related read operations.

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