list_subscriptions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-style operation (list), filtering behavior, and pagination mechanism (cursor), but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, mention authentication requirements, or describe the response format. It gives useful behavioral hints but omits some key expectations.

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, compact sentence that immediately states the primary purpose and then lists the optional filters. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, making it easy for an agent to scan and understand quickly.

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?

For a straightforward list tool, the description covers the essential functionality: data to list, filters, and pagination. However, it lacks explicit read-only confirmation, and without an output schema, the agent must infer the return shape. Given the low schema coverage and no annotations, a bit more detail (e.g., response format, auth) would be expected.

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 only 25% (only 'status' has a description). The description compensates by naming all four parameters (status, offer_slug, limit, after) and adding context for pagination ('cursor'). However, it only provides an example for status (CSV) and does not clarify the cursor format or offer_slug syntax beyond what the schema implies.

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 action (list) and resource (tenant subscriptions). The phrase 'do tenant' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_customer_subscriptions, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling or the distinction. The optional filters (status, offer_slug, pagination) further specify scope.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as get_customer_subscriptions or get_subscription. Sibling tools offer similar listing capabilities (e.g., get_customer_subscriptions) but the description provides no selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer.

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