find_subscriptions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it implies a read-only retrieval and discloses the shape of returned data (frequency, next date, annualized cost), which is genuinely useful. It does not state behavior on empty results (no subscriptions detected), detection criteria, or whether it covers all accounts.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then the returned fields; every element earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't restate return structure, and it still briefly signals the headline fields. For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool this is nearly complete; only detection scope and empty-result behavior are unaddressed.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the schema. Baseline 4 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 names the resource precisely (recurring charges / subscriptions) and enumerates the returned fields (amount, periodicity, next charge date, annual cost). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like spending_by_category or forecast_month, though it opens with a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb.

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 choose this tool over find_unusual_transactions, search_transactions, or forecast_month, and no stated preconditions (e.g. that a bank connection or transaction history is required). Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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