subscription_status_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals a read operation via 'Get' but says nothing about authentication requirements (the apiKey/restEndpoint params suggest a Braze REST call), rate limits, or what happens when identifiers are missing. Little is added beyond the verb.

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 short sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but it is arguably under-specified rather than truly concise. There is no signal about output or identifier requirements, leaving the brevity closer to thinness than 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?

For a read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least sketch what a 'subscription group status' result contains (e.g., subscribed/unsubscribed states). It does not, and it omits that at least one user identifier is needed, so an agent lacks enough to call it confidently.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters, including the required subscription_group_id and the email/phone/external_id query arrays. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('subscription group status for users'), which is clear on its own. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings like 'subscription_user_status', 'email_subscription_status', or 'subscription_status_set', whose relationship to this read tool an agent must infer.

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 use this read tool versus the near-identical 'subscription_user_status' sibling, nor any mention of prerequisites such as supplying at least one of email/phone/external_id. The only usage hint is the implicit 'for users' phrasing.

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