asc_get_subscription_events_range

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors (default JSON with reportDate column, tsv for raw, max 60 days). However, it omits error handling, authentication needs, or what happens if date range is invalid. More transparency would be beneficial.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the purpose and then detail usage. Every sentence earns its place without any redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential information: purpose, parameter alternatives, constraints, and output format. It is largely complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 75%, and the description adds value by explaining the effect of format (JSON for aggregation, tsv for raw) and clarifying the relationship between daysBack and startDate/endDate. This compensates for schema gaps.

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 tool fetches and concatenates SUBSCRIPTION_EVENT reports for a range of days. This distinct purpose is differentiated from the sibling asc_get_subscription_events, which likely handles single events or days.

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 explicit guidance on using daysBack versus startDate/endDate, a maximum of 60 days, and the format parameter's impact. However, it does not explicitly say when to avoid this tool or name alternatives.

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