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. It states 'Get all subscription definitions', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe (non-destructive), what permissions are required, or how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness in tool descriptions.

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 context: no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameter's purpose, return values, or behavioral traits like safety or permissions. For a tool with one parameter and no structured support, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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?

The input schema has one parameter ('archived' of type boolean) with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the schema provides no details on its meaning. The description doesn't mention this parameter at all, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the lack of any parameter explanation in the description limits the score to the minimum viable level.

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 'all subscription definitions for the portal', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'communications_get_subscription_status' or 'communications_get_preferences', which handle related but different data, so it falls short of 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_get_subscription_status' (which retrieves statuses rather than definitions) or 'communications_get_preferences', leaving the agent to infer usage based on naming alone, which is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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