List My Industry Subscriptions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context: the exact fields returned, the fact that encrypted bearer tokens are never returned (only has_bearer_token), and scoping to the authenticated user via Bearer token. This goes beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose+origin, return fields, and deletion instruction+security note. It is concise and well-structured without redundancy.

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 (0 params), the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient extra context: lifecycle relationships, return field highlights, and auth scoping. It is complete for this use case.

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 description explains 'No parameters — scoped to the authenticated user via the Bearer token.' The tool description itself doesn't add param semantics, but the baseline for 0 params is 4, and the schema description covers the rationale.

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 clearly states 'List the NACE industry-monitoring subscriptions of the authenticated Firmaradar user', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like subscribe_nace, delete_subscription, and list_nace_codes by focusing on the user's subscriptions.

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 gives clear context by noting subscriptions are 'created via subscribe_nace or the portal' and instructs to 'use the returned id with delete_subscription to remove one'. This contextualizes the tool within a subscription lifecycle, though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative-for-the-same-task guidance.

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