subscription_request_history_list

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the operation implied by the name and provides no details about pagination, scope, sorting, response shape, or any side effects/safety implications.

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 very concise and front-loaded, using a single short sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter list operation, though it adds no information beyond the tool name.

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?

With no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves ambiguity around what the history includes, whether it is global or user-scoped, and how it relates to the similar sibling tools. An agent could invoke it correctly, but not with full confidence about what it will return.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema shows no properties, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies because the description does not need to clarify any parameter meaning.

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 a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('subscription request history'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate itself from similar siblings like 'subscription_request_history_stats' or 'users_subscription_request_history', so it falls short of a 5.

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. With multiple sibling tools related to subscription request history, an agent receives no context about why this particular list tool should be selected.

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