List subscriptions

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining the platform limitation (no administration-wide subscription list) and why `contact_id` is required.

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 short sentences with no waste: the main action is stated first, followed by the key constraint and rationale. It is front-loaded and easy for an agent to parse.

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 one required parameter, one optional parameter, and robust annotations, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. Minor details like pagination or ordering are not mentioned, but they are not essential for selecting or calling this tool.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces that `contact_id` is required and explains why, but it does not add substantially new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 the specific operation ('List the subscriptions') and the required scope ('of one contact'), which clearly identifies what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from an administration-wide list by explicitly noting Moneybird has none, so an agent understands the contact-scoped nature.

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 gives clear context that subscriptions must always be scoped to a contact and that `contact_id` is mandatory because no administration-wide list exists. It could additionally name alternatives such as `get_subscription` or `list_subscription_templates`, but the boundary for using this tool is nonetheless clear.

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