list_product_subscribers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals it is a read operation ('lesen'), which is the only behavioral disclosure. It doesn't clarify whether it returns subscribers with permission levels, whether it reflects pending vs approved access, or how the data contract governs subscriber state. With zero annotation coverage, more behavioral detail is needed.

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?

A single concise sentence in German. It is efficiently sized and front-loaded with the core action. However, for a tool with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the brevity is more under-specification 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?

For a tool with only 1 parameter, no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but with an output schema provided, the description should clarify what the output represents. It does not explain the return semantics. Though low complexity, the complete lack of parameter and behavioral detail leaves gaps for a tool that likely returns a meaningful list requiring interpretation.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented product_id parameter. However, the description mentions 'Datenprodukt' (data product) which implicitly ties product_id to a data product identifier, but adds no format constraints, no guidance on how to obtain the ID, and no mention of which contract it maps to. Minimal value added over the schema.

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 it reads subscribers of a data product from the governing data contract ('Subscriber eines Datenprodukts aus dem governing Data Contract lesen'). This is a specific verb+resource, distinguishing it from siblings like get_data_product or search_data_products in that it deals with subscribers specifically, though it doesn't name any alternative explicitly.

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 is given on when to use it versus alternatives. Given siblings like get_data_product, preview_data_product, and request_data_access, the description provides no hints about when reading subscribers is appropriate versus other products. The context of 'governing Data Contract' is mentioned but not explained.

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