subscriptions_get_connection_keys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is known without the description. The description adds useful context that the keys are returned in base64 format. It does not mention permissions, sensitivity, or error behavior, so with annotations carrying the main behavioral load, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The essential action, resource, format, and key input are all stated immediately.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It notes the base64 return format, but slightly more could be said about what the connection keys represent or any permission requirements.

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 100% and the single userId parameter is documented as 'User ID'. The description adds no syntax, range, or format details beyond the schema's exclusiveMinimum constraint. This matches the baseline of 3 when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Get connection keys (base64 format) by user id'. It clearly identifies the returned artifact and scoping input, distinguishing it from generic subscription fetchers. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools such as subscriptions_get_by_user_id or subscription_info, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiating.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'by user id' implies it should be used when a user ID is available, but there are many sibling subscription and connection tools, and no alternative or selection condition is mentioned.

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