remnawave_subscription_request_history_list

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

The description notes the tool is read-only, which is the only behavioral cue. Without annotations, this is insufficient: no information on authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or scope of the returned data. The agent is left to infer behavior from the tool name and parameters.

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?

The description is extremely short but at the expense of necessary detail. It lacks structure and fails to convey critical information that would fit in a few more sentences. Conciseness should not come at the cost of utility.

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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description is woefully incomplete. It provides no return format, behavior details, or parameter explanations. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without external documentation.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about the four parameters: payload, confirmToken, responseMode, mutationApproved. The agent cannot correctly set these without additional knowledge. The parameter names hint at functionality but are not explained.

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 'list' and '(read)', clearly indicating a read operation to list subscription request history. However, it does not specify the scope (e.g., global, per user, per subscription), and it is almost redundant with the tool name. This provides basic clarity but lacks precision.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remnawave_subscription_request_history_get_stats' or 'remnawave_users_get_subscription_request_history'. The description omits context for when-not-to-use and does not mention prerequisites or typical use cases.

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