List company subscriptions (compact)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is set; the description adds real value by disclosing the two-step resolution (company lookup then GetSubscriptions) and the shape of the result. It stops short of covering failure behavior when a company name doesn't resolve or any result-size limits.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the preferred-use case, then mechanism, then return shape, then the default flag. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.

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, the description correctly covers the return value at a summary level (compact, no huge Fields arrays) and explains input resolution. It omits what happens when the company cannot be found and whether results are paginated, which are the remaining gaps for a lookup-style tool with five optional params.

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 coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining the accountId-vs-companyName interaction and the implicit dependency on find_companies, and by restating activeOnly's default=true meaning. excludeUserLevel and parentAccountId remain undiscussed 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?

States a specific verb+resource (list subscriptions for a company) and pins it to a concrete user question, "which subscriptions does company X have?". It also differentiates itself from the many subscription siblings by advertising a compact result rather than full Fields arrays.

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?

"PREFERRED for ..." gives an explicit selection signal, and the resolution order (accountId or name via find_companies) tells the agent how to prepare inputs. It never states the inverse condition directly (e.g. use get_subscriptions when you need full field arrays), leaving that to inference from "no huge Fields arrays".

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