Get activity subscriptions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds absolutely nothing on top of that and does not disclose behavioral traits that are NOT in annotations. Since no credit should be given for repeating structured fields, this description contributes no behavioral value.

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?

It is a single sentence with no wasted words, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Brevity here removes information the agent needs rather than removing 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?

For a 17-parameter, zero-coverage, no-output-schema operation, the description is completely inadequate. It leaves the agent unable to determine what the tool returns, which parameters matter, or when to invoke it.

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 tool has 17 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. Parameters like sysparm_query, sysparm_fields, sysparm_display_value, table_name, and document_id are left entirely opaque, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's complete lack of documentation.

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 is a bare restatement of the operation name ('Invoke the get_activity_subscriptions operation') with no verb+resource detail beyond the name itself. It gives no indication of what an activity subscription is or what is being retrieved, and offers no differentiation from any sibling tool.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative tools are mentioned. The agent is given nothing to decide whether this tool is the right one for its task.

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