communications_get_subscription_definitions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or what 'all' entails (e.g., whether it returns archived items by default). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get all subscription definitions') without unnecessary words. It earns its place by clearly stating the tool's purpose in minimal terms.

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 no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., read-only confirmation, error handling), parameter usage, and return values, making it inadequate for a tool that likely returns a list of subscription definitions.

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 description mentions 'all subscription definitions' but doesn't reference the 'archived' parameter in the input schema. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, the description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond the general scope. However, since there's only one optional parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description doesn't compensate for the lack of schema details, warranting a 3.

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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('all subscription definitions for the portal'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'communications_get_subscription_status' or 'communications_get_preferences', which handle related but different data.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare it to sibling tools like 'communications_get_subscription_status' or 'communications_get_preferences', leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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