List subscription templates

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotence, non-destructiveness, and open-world behavior, so the description's additional contribution is its authentication scope requirement. This is a concrete behavioral constraint not present in the annotations, which meaningfully helps the agent anticipate authorization failures. No contradiction exists between description and annotations.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. The action is front-loaded, and the authorization note is concise and directly useful. Every word earns its place.

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 operation with no required parameters and annotations covering safety and idempotence, the description is nearly complete. It omits details about the return shape, but no output schema exists and the scope requirement plus clear resource name provide enough context for correct invocation. A small note clarifying how subscription templates differ from subscriptions would improve completeness, but is not essential.

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 describes all three parameters with complete coverage, including defaults and maximums. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states, so a baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the subscription templates of the administration.' This clearly identifies the exact action and target, and the resource name distinguishes it from related siblings like list_subscriptions. It is not a tautology and there is no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 a useful prerequisite by noting the required `settings` scope versus `sales_invoices`, which helps the agent understand when the tool is accessible. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as list_subscriptions or list_recurring_sales_invoices, leaving the usage context mostly implied.

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