subscription_request_history_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing that filters run expensive LIKE operators and can degrade database performance, which is genuine behavioral context beyond the 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the performance warning is a single efficiently-worded sentence. Slightly verbose but no filler.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description could explain the relationship to the filtered user-scoped sibling, but it does adequately convey the purpose and the main operational hazard. Pagination is covered by the schema's size/start descriptions.

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 only 33% (size and start documented; filters, sorting, filterModes, globalFilterMode not). The description partially compensates by explaining the cost and intent of the filters parameter, but sorting, filterModes, and globalFilterMode remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get all subscription request history'), so the agent knows this is a read-list operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely-named siblings users_subscription_request_history or subscription_request_history_stats, leaving ambiguity about which list is which.

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 warns that the filters are 'primarily intended for use by the frontend' and that misuse hurts database performance, which gives implicit guidance to restrain filter use. But it offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or direction to the stats sibling.

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