pax8_list_subscription_usage_summaries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and lists parameters, with no disclosure of behavior beyond pagination defaults. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, potential error conditions, rate limits, or any side effects. For a list operation this is minimal; the description is not misleading but leaves much to inference.

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 concise, with a single introductory sentence followed by a structured Args block. It is efficient and avoids redundancy. The Args section is front-loaded with parameter semantics, and there is no filler. It could be more concise by removing the docstring format, but it is appropriately sized.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), so return format does not need to be explained. However, the description lacks any mention of pagination behavior beyond defaults, error handling, or any special cases like empty results. For a simple list tool with one required parameter, this is adequate but not thorough. The presence of sibling tools for related operations is not addressed, leaving the agent to guess when to use this specific one.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains 'page' as 'Zero-based page number for pagination' with a default, and 'size' as 'Number of results per page' with a default. 'subscription_id' is described as 'The unique identifier of the subscription,' which clarifies its role. Since the schema itself has no parameter descriptions (coverage 0%), this description compensates by defining each parameter's purpose and default behavior.

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 the action ('List usage summaries') and the scope ('for a specific subscription'), which is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool pax8_list_usage_summary_lines, but the phrase 'for a specific subscription' implies a per-subscription focus, distinguishing it from a broader usage-summary-lines tool. This is slightly more specific than a generic 'list' but lacks explicit sibling 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pax8_list_usage_summary_lines or pax8_list_subscriptions. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions that would favor this tool. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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