x_api_get_account_activity_subscription_count

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states risk (read-only), required permissions (bearer token), environment-selection behavior (scopeTenantId plus exactly one of scopeUserId/scopeAccountId), expected response shape, common failure conditions, and safety warnings about sensitive data. This is exceptionally transparent for a tool with no 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 well-structured with labeled sections (Risk, Required permissions, Environment-selection behavior, etc.), making it easy to scan. It is longer than average, but most sentences provide valuable context. The redundancy of 'Use when: Get subscription count' repeats the first line and wastes a sentence, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage guidance, permissions, environment selection, parameter constraints, response shape, failure conditions, recommended tools, safety warnings, and an example. The only minor gaps are the two unexplained parameters, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the roles of scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey, but the statement 'no endpoint-specific parameters' is misleading given the schema lists six parameters. It also leaves authorizationKey and preferredAuthType completely unexplained. The example illustrates scopeTenantId and scopeUserId, but semantic coverage is incomplete.

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 'Get subscription count' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like x_api_get_account_activity_subscriptions (plural), which likely lists subscriptions rather than counting them. The name itself helps, but the description could be more explicit about the count vs. list distinction.

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 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' guidance, but the 'Use when' is tautological ('Get subscription count'). It does offer useful exclusions (e.g., prefer x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion when exploring) and recommends prerequisite/follow-up tools like x_connection_info and x_auth_get_scope_credentials. However, it does not compare this tool against sibling subscription tools, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over x_api_get_account_activity_subscriptions.

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