Pay: subscriptions list

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

Annotations already cover the read-only safety profile, but the description adds real behavioral context: the fields returned per subscription and the authorization scope ('Non-admins see only subscriptions they are linked to'). It does not mention pagination defaults or rate limits, but the added access-scoping detail exceeds what the annotations provide.

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 first parenthetical ('paginated, optionally filtered by --status') is immediately repeated in the body ('paged, optionally filtered by status such as...'), so the opening sentence is redundant. The access-scope note at the end is front-of-mind material and adds value, but the duplication costs efficiency.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, which is exactly what an agent needs. Combined with the read-only annotation and the non-admin scoping caveat, it covers the essentials for a paginated read tool, with only pagination behavior left implicit.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description mentions status filtering and lists example values (active, trialing, cancelled), which duplicates the schema's own enum-less example rather than extending it; baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (subscriptions), and enumerates the fields returned (id, name, status, price, customer email, created date), so an agent immediately understands the resource. It does not name the nearby siblings that also return subscription data (pay_subscriptions_get, pay_subscriptions_by_user), so differentiation is left partly to inference.

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?

Implied usage is clear (enumerate a project's subscriptions, optionally filtered by status), and the access note about non-admins is useful. However, it never states when to reach for this versus pay_subscriptions_get or pay_subscriptions_by_user, so it falls short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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