list_subscriptions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states that it lists subscription groups, which implies a read-only operation, but fails to disclose pagination, default limit, response format, permissions, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that could have varying behavior.

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, concise sentence that states the purpose without filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it sacrifices additional helpful guidance. This is concise but slightly under-specified, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 two-parameter schema and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a subscription group is, how results are ordered, what fields are returned, or how errors/manage edge cases (e.g., no groups). An agent would need more context to reliably interpret the tool's output.

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 fully describes both parameters (appId with a clear description, and limit with numeric constraints and default). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides; the phrase 'for an app' simply restates the appId purpose. Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'subscription groups' and scope 'for an app', making it clear what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools (e.g., list_apps, list_beta_groups) by naming a distinct resource type, even though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus other list tools like list_in_app_purchases or list_beta_groups. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., obtaining an appId) or any exclusion scenarios. The only contextual hint is 'for an app', which is already implied by the required appId parameter.

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