Notifications_getSubscription

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It characterizes the operation as returning information, implying a read-only getter, and adds a notable environmental constraint: 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here.' It does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or error behavior, but for a simple getter the read-only implication is reasonably clear.

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 short, but the first fragment, 'Catalog entry,' is confusing and adds little value. The key information about the subscription lookup is in the final sentence, but the runtime caveat interrupts the message and could mislead an agent.

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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description is thin. It identifies the conceptual selection criteria but not the exact property names to use, and it does not describe the returned subscription data or how this call relates to getSubscriptionById. An agent would likely need additional knowledge to invoke it 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?

With zero parameters in the schema and additionalProperties set to true, the description provides the only parameter guidance by naming 'specified notification type and payload version.' This goes beyond the empty schema, though it still does not give exact parameter names or formats.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Returns information about subscription'. It also differentiates from the sibling Notifications_getSubscriptionById by naming 'notification type and payload version' as the selection criteria, rather than an ID. However, the opening 'Catalog entry' and the runtime caveat add ambiguity about what the tool actually does.

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 implies the tool should be used when a subscription is identified by notification type and payload version, which distinguishes it from getSubscriptionById. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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