x_api_get_account_activity_subscriptions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility and excels. It clearly states read-only risk, required bearer token, environment-selection behavior for scoped credentials, parameter constraints, expected response shape, common failure conditions, and safety warnings. This is rich, actionable context beyond the bare description.

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 (Use when, Risk, Required permissions, etc.) and each section provides useful information. It is somewhat lengthy but avoids redundancy; the front-loaded 'Get subscriptions' is immediately clear.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It covers authorization, environment selection, parameter formats, response shape, failure conditions, and safety, providing all essential context an agent needs to invoke the tool effectively.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the role of key parameters: webhook_id (path, required), scopeTenantId combined with exactly one of scopeUserId/scopeAccountId for auth resolution, and credentialKey for selecting a stored profile. It leaves authorizationKey and preferredAuthType undocumented, but the major semantics are covered.

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 'Get subscriptions' with a clear verb and resource, but it is vague about the specific type of subscriptions (account activity) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like x_api_get_activity_subscriptions. The name itself provides more specificity than the description.

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 includes 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' clauses, providing context for when to avoid the tool (exploration, need for auth/config). However, it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool over other subscription-related tools, leaving ambiguity among siblings.

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