users_subscription_request_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get' which implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose what the response looks like, whether it returns raw or processed history, pagination behavior, ordering, or any access requirements. For a read tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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?

One short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No wasted words. It could arguably be more informative, but for what it says, it is concise and clear.

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 has a single required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is minimal: it tells what the tool does but not what the agent should expect in return, how the history is ordered, or how it differs from the sibling history tools. For a simple read tool, this is below the minimum viable threshold.

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%: the only parameter userId is described as 'User numeric ID'. The description adds the context that the history is 'for a specific user', which reinforces the parameter's role. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 ('Get'), a resource ('subscription request history'), and a scope ('for a specific user'). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling subscription_request_history_list (which likely lists all history) and subscription_request_history_stats (which provides statistics). It doesn't explicitly name the sibling, but the resource+scope is clear enough.

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 implies usage: call when you need a single user's subscription request history. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs subscription_request_history_list or subscription_request_history_stats, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but no alternatives are named.

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