x_api_get_activity_subscriptions

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and excels at it. It discloses the read-only risk, required permissions (bearer token, OAuth 2/1a scopes), environment-selection behavior for scope parameters, common failure conditions, and safety warnings about sensitive account data. This provides rich behavioral transparency beyond a simple operation 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 long but well-structured with labeled sections (Risk, Required permissions, Environment-selection behavior, etc.). It front-loads the purpose and avoids fluff—every section adds concrete value. While it could be trimmed slightly, the structure compensates for length and aids parsing.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It includes expected response shape, common failure conditions, recommended tools, an example invocation, and safety warnings. This gives an agent enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 does explain the role of scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey in authentication selection, and specifies types for max_results and pagination_token. However, it omits semantics for authorizationKey and preferredAuthType, leaving a noticeable gap in parameter coverage.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Get X activity subscriptions.' However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like x_api_get_account_activity_subscriptions or x_api_get_activity_subscription_count. The 'Use when' line merely repeats the purpose without adding differentiation.

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 some usage context through 'Do not use when' (e.g., preferring x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion for exploration) and recommends prerequisite tools like x_connection_info and x_auth_get_scope_credentials. However, the 'Use when' is tautological and there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over its sibling subscription-related tools.

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