list_subscriptions

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

The description states it searches within the current platform and returns a list, but it contradicts the input schema by saying 'Optionally filter by ... customer email' while email is a required parameter. It also lacks other behavioral disclosures like pagination or return format. The required-email mismatch is misleading and significant.

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?

Four concise sentences, each with a distinct purpose: state the action, mention filters, state the return, and provide an alternative. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no fluff.

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 source of behavioral information. It fails to mention that email is required, doesn't describe the list output structure or pagination, and omits any error or permission context. The alternative tool reference adds value but the gaps are significant for a list operation.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate. It adds meaning for 'status' (with examples active/deactivated) and clarifies 'product' as product name, but it doesn't explain the unusual email object type or resolve the optional-vs-required contradiction. This is partial compensation, not full.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('FastSpring subscriptions'), and scope ('current platform'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_subscription' by explicitly noting it returns a list and pointing to get_subscription for full details.

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 gives clear usage context: use this tool to search for subscriptions with optional filters, and explicitly names an alternative ('Use get_subscription to fetch the full details of a specific subscription'). This tells the agent when to prefer one tool over the other.

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