fahali_list_risk_subscriptions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: callback URLs and encrypted configuration are deliberately withheld, and health signals (last delivery, failure count) are included. It does not mention pagination behavior for the 'limit' cap, which is the main remaining gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the security caveat. The middle sentence enumerating returned fields is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, but it is compact and readable rather than padded.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and with all parameters optional and 83% schema-documented, it need not re-document them. What it must convey — read-only scoping to the caller, withheld sensitive fields, and the deduplication use case — is all present.

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 83%, above the threshold where the schema is expected to carry parameter meaning, and indeed the description names none of the six parameters (limit, since, detail, symbols, watch_id, include_withheld). The return-field list it does provide is not parameter guidance, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('List the caller's risk-delivery subscriptions and their health') with explicit scope limited to the caller. It implicitly separates itself from the write siblings (fahali_subscribe_risk, fahali_update_subscription, fahali_unsubscribe_risk) by positioning the call as a pre-creation check, so an agent can pick it without opening any schema.

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?

'Use this before creating a duplicate subscription' gives a concrete triggering condition tied to a named sibling activity. It lacks an explicit when-not clause (e.g., use fahali_get_realtime_alerts for live deliveries instead), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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