Get subscriptions

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful context that compact=true is the default and drops large Fields arrays, but it says nothing about permissions, pagination, result volume, or what the non-compact payload looks like.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, then the sibling routing, then the default behavior. Very little waste, though the quoted-phrase routing sentence is slightly compressed and the tool name is repeated verbatim rather than described.

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?

For a five-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the two things an agent most needs: the required scope and the default compact behavior. Return shape details are only partially implied via the compact mention, leaving a small gap.

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 including compact, activeOnly, resellerContext, and excludeUserLevel are already documented in the schema. The description restates the compact default rather than adding interpretation, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('GetSubscriptions') scoped to a parent account, which is concrete enough to act on. It does distinguish from list_company_subscriptions for the name-based lookup case, but the phrasing 'GetSubscriptions under parentAccountId' is terse and carries mild ambiguity about whether it returns one or many.

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?

Explicitly names an alternative tool and the condition that should route to it ('subscriptions of company X by name' -> list_company_subscriptions). It gives clear positive context but no guidance on when NOT to use it beyond that single case (e.g., vs get_subscription for a single ID).

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