get_subscriber_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm this or describe other traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence ('Get detailed information about a specific subscriber') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it optimally concise and well-structured.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves detailed information. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, how results are formatted, or any behavioral aspects like permissions or errors. For a tool with 2 required parameters and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 100%, with both parameters ('publication_id' and 'subscriber_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as format examples or contextual usage. This meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific subscriber'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_subscribers' (which likely lists multiple subscribers) or 'get_publication_details' (which focuses on publications rather than subscribers), missing the opportunity for full sibling differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_subscriber_details' over 'get_subscribers' (for bulk vs. single subscriber queries) or other sibling tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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