list_subscriptions

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the schema, such as the date range behavior (from 00:00:00 to 23:59:59, invalid dates ignored) and that the status filter is exact. Although no annotations are provided, this provides good transparency for a read-only GET operation.

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 well-structured: a concise first sentence, then a list of parameters with brief explanations, followed by examples. It is informative without being verbose, though it could be slightly more front-loaded.

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 12 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers filtering and pagination. It does not describe return format or defaults, but the verb 'List' implies a list. It is sufficiently complete for a list endpoint.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying 'exact status', 'createdAt range', and date behaviors. Examples further illustrate parameter usage, adding value beyond the raw schema.

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 'List subscriptions' and provides the HTTP method. It lists all filtering options, making the purpose clear. However, among siblings like get_customer_subscriptions, it does not explicitly differentiate its scope (global vs per customer), so it misses some 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 examples of common use cases, which implies usage, but it does not offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use or comparative information is given.

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