mhlb_list_subscriptions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by explaining that subscriptions are auto-charged recurring orders and by warning that returned text is third-party and untrusted, which is a concrete security disclosure an agent needs before acting on output.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the trust warning. Both sentences earn their place, though the security line is somewhat boilerplate rather than tool-specific.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and the untrusted-data caveat. Slight gap on return shape/pagination, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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% for the single 'period' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no extra detail about period semantics or format, so 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 and resource ('List upcoming lunch subscriptions') and goes further to define what a subscription is ('recurring orders that will be placed and charged automatically'), which cleanly separates it from settings-related siblings like get_subscription_settings. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the resource and scope make the tool's identity unambiguous.

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 'upcoming' scope hints at intent, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as get_subscription_settings or set_subscription_enabled. An agent must infer the right context on its own.

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