cigchat_get_subscriber

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds an auth requirement (Manage Flow scope) and implies a read operation via 'Get', which is helpful. However, it does not describe return fields, error behavior, or any additional constraints beyond the endpoint and scope.

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 compact and front-loaded: two clauses, each adding distinct information (what and endpoint/auth). There is no fluff, and the sentence earns its place by giving the endpoint and a prerequisite.

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 simple one-parameter GET operation, the description is minimally viable with endpoint and auth scope. However, the existence of cigchat_get_subscriber_by_user_id creates a critical ambiguity, and the absence of any mention of alternatives or output expectations leaves a clear completeness gap.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with a description for user_ns, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning about the format, origin, or acceptable values of user_ns, leaving the agent to rely only on the schema's minimal 'Subscriber user_ns' text.

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 clearly identifies the action as 'Get subscriber info' and provides the explicit endpoint GET /subscriber/get-info. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling tool cigchat_get_subscriber_by_user_id, which appears to serve a similar purpose with a different identifier.

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?

The description gives a prerequisite (requires 'Manage Flow' scope) but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cigchat_get_subscriber_by_user_id or cigchat_search_subscribers. There is no mention of what scenario warrants user_ns versus user_id, leaving selection to chance.

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