get_subscribers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get subscribers' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, if there are rate limits, what the return format is (e.g., list, paginated), or if it's destructive. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action and target.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and the description lacks behavioral details, it's incomplete for effective use. The agent knows what to do (get subscribers) but not how it behaves, what it returns, or when to use it versus siblings. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured support, the description should provide more context to compensate.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for publication_id and limit (including a default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 'Get subscribers for a publication' clearly states the action (get) and resource (subscribers), with the context (for a publication) that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_subscriber_details or get_segments. However, it doesn't specify the scope (e.g., all subscribers vs. filtered) or differentiate from potential similar tools like get_subscribers_by_segment, which would be needed for 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like get_subscriber_details (for individual subscriber data) or get_segments (for subscriber groups), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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