subscriptions_get_by_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get subscription details' without describing what 'details' includes, whether the response is raw or processed, or any side effects or permission requirements. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated, and no error or edge-case behavior is mentioned.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action and key. It avoids redundancy and doesn't waste words. However, it might be too brief to cover important context, but that is a completeness issue, not a conciseness problem.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema) and the presence of multiple sibling getters, the description is still incomplete. It does not specify the return format or what 'details' contains, nor does it clarify whether the look-up is by the user's subscription or the user's ID itself. An agent would need to infer how to interpret the result and how this differs from other subscription retrieval endpoints.

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 schema already documents userId as 'User numeric ID' with 100% coverage, so the description adds no new parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema adequately defines the single parameter, and the description does not need to compensate for any gaps.

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 clear action ('Get subscription details') and identifies the key lookup mechanism ('by user numeric ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling getters that use username or short_uuid, though it doesn't name those alternatives explicitly. The resource and purpose are unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over subscriptions_get_by_username, subscriptions_get_by_short_uuid, or other subscription retrieval tools. The only hint is the parameter name, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used when a numeric user ID is available. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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