List subscriptions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it returns the complete set unfiltered and deliberately excludes the caller's own publications. It does not discuss auth requirements, ordering, or any size limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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 resource and its identity, then the return shape. The plan enumeration (free, paid, comp, founding, gift) and the exclusion clause each earn their place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing return values and does so concretely — fields and their possible values are enumerated, and the one surprising exclusion is stated. An agent can call this correctly and interpret the result without further information.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The description correctly avoids inventing filter options that the empty schema would reject.

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?

"Returns every publication your account subscribes to" names the resource and its direction clearly, and the field list (name, link, plan, email delivery) pins down what comes back. It implicitly separates itself from list_subscribers by direction (what you subscribe to, not who subscribes to you) but never names that sibling, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 Settings > Subscriptions analogy gives a usable mental model for when this tool is the right one, and "Your own publications are left out" is a real scoping remark. But there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the other list_* tools, nor any note that no filtering/pagination is offered, leaving usage implied.

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