list_subscriptions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says only that filters and pagination exist, without stating that the call is non-destructive/read-only, what the pagination defaults or caps are, or what the response contains. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves real gaps.

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 compact sentence with no padding, front-loading the action and resource. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, so it is efficient but under-delivers rather than wastes words.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only place to convey return shape and safety, and it does not. Five optional parameters are covered by the schema, so the tool is callable, but an agent gets no sense of what a response looks like or how results are ordered.

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 100%, so all five parameters (limit, offset, status, customer, billingType) are already documented in the schema; the description only restates 'filtros e paginação'. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds nothing further.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('assinaturas') plus scope ('ativas e inativas'), so the agent knows this is a read/list operation. However, it never distinguishes itself from the closely related siblings create_subscription and cancel_subscription, which is the main differentiator an agent needs.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as get_payment/list_payments or create_subscription. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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