Get a subscription

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a little value by noting there is no request body and by flagging the path/query naming inconsistency in the docs, but it does not describe response shape, error behavior, or other behavioral specifics. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and endpoint. The ambiguity note and reference link are purposeful, though 'See C06' is cryptic and could be clearer.

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 two-parameter read-only GET, the endpoint, no-body note, and schema-provided query/pagination guidance give a workable baseline. However, there is no mention of return value structure, not-found behavior, or when to choose this over sibling subscription tools, leaving noticeable gaps.

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 description clarifies that `subscriptionId` lives in the path and warns about the inconsistency between the external docs and the definition, which is useful. It also states 'Body fields: none,' but the schema already implies this by having only path and query properties. It does not explain what a subscription is or how the open query object behaves beyond what the schema's query description already covers.

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 verb and resource ('Get a subscription') and gives the exact REST path, so an agent can identify the target. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from `xmatters_get_subscriptions` or the subscription-form siblings, but the singular path with `subscriptionId` makes the intent clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `xmatters_get_subscriptions` or `xmatters_get_a_subscription_form`. The description provides an endpoint but no context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, so the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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