subscriptions_versions_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: not that this is a read-only paginated collection, not how pagination works, and not that 'include' expands relationships. For a 10-parameter collection endpoint the description is behaviorally empty.

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 the single sentence is a redundant echo of the tool name and parentheses-wrapped path rather than useful content. Brevity here reflects absent information rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a trivial one-line description, an agent is left without the essential context: the relationship-vs-related distinction, pagination semantics, and whether 'include'/'fields' affect the shape of the returned versions. For a tool of this complexity this is inadequate.

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 every parameter (limit, include, filter_state, fields_*, limit_images, limit_localizations) is already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, but per the high-coverage baseline a 3 is the correct floor for a schema that does the heavy lifting.

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 a bare restatement of the endpoint path 'GET /v1/subscriptions/{id}/versions', which largely duplicates what the tool name already encodes. It does not explain in prose that it retrieves the version history of a subscription, nor does it distinguish this from the nearly identical sibling subscriptions_versions_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 at all. Critically, the sibling subscriptions_versions_get_to_many_relationship is nearly name-identical, and the description never states when the 'related' variant (full resource objects) should be chosen over the 'relationship' variant (linkages only).

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