subscriptions_get_connection_keys

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and 'Get' only signals a read operation. It does not disclose whether the result is per-subscription or per-node, whether keys are sensitive or derived, or what the response looks like, leaving meaningful behavioral uncertainty.

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 filler or repeated information. It is appropriately compact for a one-parameter read operation.

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 is simple (one required parameter, no output schema), so this is near-viable. However, 'connection keys' is domain-specific and undefined, and with no output schema or annotations the agent cannot anticipate the return shape or edge cases such as a user with no subscription.

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 userId is already documented as 'User numeric ID' with a required integer type. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('connection keys for a user subscription'), so the core purpose is identifiable. It does not explain what connection keys are or explicitly differentiate from related subscription/connection sibling tools, but the verb+object is enough to avoid being a tautology.

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 guidance on when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as subscriptions_get_by_id, subscriptions_get_by_username, or connections_fetch_by_user. The description implies a simple lookup but offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

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