subscription_groups_subscriptions_get_to_many_related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the endpoint. It does not mention pagination (limit), sorting, inclusion of relationships, or filtering — all of which this endpoint supports and which an agent needs to know before invoking.

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?

It is short, but it wastes its only slot by repeating the identical path string twice in parentheses. There is no front-loaded purpose statement, and no information is conveyed that the tool name did not already carry.

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 30-parameter GET with no annotations and no output schema, the description is entirely inadequate. It omits pagination behavior, relationship inclusion semantics, filtering capabilities, and the distinction from its sibling, leaving the agent to reverse-engineer everything from the schema alone.

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% across all 30 parameters, each documented in the schema itself (sort, limit, include, filter_state, limit_images, fields_*, etc.). The description adds nothing, but the schema already does the work, so the baseline of 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 is just the HTTP method and path echoed twice: 'GET /v1/subscriptionGroups/{id}/subscriptions (GET /v1/subscriptionGroups/{id}/subscriptions)'. It technically reveals the verb and resource, but it's a restatement of the tool name/path rather than a stated purpose, and it does nothing to distinguish this tool from the near-identical sibling subscription_groups_subscriptions_get_to_many_relationship.

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 when-to-use guidance, no conditions, no mention of alternatives. With a sibling tool named subscription_groups_subscriptions_get_to_many_relationship that differs only by the 'related' vs 'relationship' suffix, the absence of any routing guidance is a serious problem for an agent choosing between them.

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