listSubscriptions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful behavioral traits: the operation is read-only, uses GET, and is rate-limited to 100 requests per minute. This is valuable safety and throttling context that the schema alone would not convey, though it omits details like pagination or empty-result behavior.

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?

Three short clauses in one sentence, each earning its place: the purpose+scope, the rate limit, and the read-only/GET disclosure. Nothing is wasted and the most important verb-resource info is front-loaded.

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 simple list tool with 2 optional params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scoping, safety, and throttling. The notable omission is parameter semantics, which keeps it from being fully complete, but the overall complexity is low and the core call path (GET subscriptions on connected account) is fully specified.

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 description must compensate for 'search' and 'status' having no meaning anywhere. It does not explain what 'status' filters by or what 'search' searches across. Two filter parameters are left completely undocumented, which is a real gap for an agent deciding what to pass.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('Stripe subscriptions'), and a scope ('on the connected account'), plus the HTTP endpoint. This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like listCoupons or getBillingSubscription without requiring schema inspection.

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 core usage context is clear: use this to list subscriptions scoped to the connected account. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., getBillingSubscription for a single subscription) or state when-not-to-use, but for a simple list tool the intended scenario is evident and no competing tool is misrouted by this description.

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