communications_get_subscription_status

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 only states what the tool does ('Get subscription status') without mentioning any behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how it handles errors, rate limits, or what format the status information returns. This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to use it effectively.

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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and follows good front-loading principles by immediately stating the core functionality.

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 2 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the subscription status includes, what the return format looks like, or provide enough parameter context. Given the complexity of subscription systems and the complete lack of structured documentation, this description leaves too many unanswered questions.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter has any documentation in the schema. The description mentions 'multiple contacts' which hints at the 'contactIds' parameter being an array, but doesn't explain what 'subscriptionId' represents, what format contact IDs should be in, or any constraints on the array size. This minimal information doesn't adequately compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 subscription status') and target ('for multiple contacts'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'communications_get_preferences' or 'communications_get_subscription_definitions', which prevents a perfect score.

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. There are related sibling tools like 'communications_get_preferences' and 'communications_update_subscription_status', but the description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions for using this specific tool.

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