remnawave_users_get_subscription_request_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'sensitive-read', which is a broad hint but lacks details on side effects, return format, authorization level, or rate limits. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient.

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 concise but at the expense of essential information. It is one sentence that adds no value beyond the name, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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) and lack of annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, how to use parameters, or what defines 'sensitive-read'. The agent cannot confidently invoke this tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description offers zero explanation of the parameters (payload, confirmToken, responseMode, mutationApproved). The agent has no way to understand what 'payload' expects or how 'mutationApproved' relates to a read operation.

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 'Remnawave users.get_subscription_request_history (sensitive-read)' essentially restates the tool name and adds a vague label. It does not specify what the tool retrieves (e.g., history for which user, scope of data) or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'remnawave_subscription_request_history_list' or 'remnawave_subscription_request_history_get_stats'.

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 tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites or context provided. The 'sensitive-read' label hints at authorization but is not explicit about usage constraints.

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