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 for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or handles errors. For a tool with two required parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps that could confuse an agent.

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 states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the main action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 has 2 required parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or provide any context about the subscription system. For a tool that presumably returns status data for multiple entities, more completeness is needed.

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 at the purpose of 'contactIds' but doesn't explain what 'subscriptionId' represents, the format of contact IDs, or any constraints. It adds minimal value beyond what's inferable from the tool name.

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 the resource 'subscription status for multiple contacts', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself 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 specify the exact scope (e.g., current vs historical status) 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'communications_update_subscription_status' for modifications or 'communications_get_preferences' for related data, nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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