communications_get_subscription_definitions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't specify whether it returns all definitions at once, supports pagination, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format the return data takes. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval operation and front-loads the essential information.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'subscription definitions' contain, how results are structured, whether there are access restrictions, or what happens when the 'archived' parameter is used. The context signals indicate significant gaps that the description doesn't address.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage. The tool description mentions 'all subscription definitions' but doesn't explain the optional 'archived' parameter's purpose or how it affects results. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but doesn't provide any parameter-specific information beyond the general scope.

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 states the action ('Get all') and resource ('subscription definitions for the portal'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'communications_get_subscription_status' or 'communications_get_preferences', but the specificity of 'definitions' vs 'status' or 'preferences' provides some implicit distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'communications_get_subscription_status' and 'communications_get_preferences' available, there's no indication whether this tool should be used for retrieving metadata/configuration versus current state or user settings.

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