Get subscribers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is to add behavioral context. It only adds the endpoint, 'Body fields: none', and a reference URL; it does not mention return shape, pagination behavior, authentication needs, or any other behavioral nuance beyond 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-loads the purpose and endpoint. The sentence about the table naming and path/query parameter locations is slightly awkward but earns its place by resolving a likely confusion; the reference URL is useful without being verbose.

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 and many subscription-related siblings, the description is adequate for basic invocation: it names the endpoint, required path parameter, optional query parameters, and confirms no body. However, it lacks explicit return-value expectations, pagination behavior, and usage differentiation, so it is not fully complete for an agent choosing among many similar read operations.

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 only 50% since the path parameter has no schema description, but the description compensates by stating that subscriptionId is a path parameter and offset/limit are query parameters. It also clarifies an API-documentation naming quirk, which is helpful, though it does not explain the semantics of offset, limit, or subscriptionId beyond what the schema already implies.

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 opens with the clear action 'Get subscribers' and then specifies the exact resource via 'GET /api/xm/1/subscriptions/{subscriptionId}/subscribers', so an agent can tell it retrieves subscribers for a subscription. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like add_subscribers or unsubscribe_a_user, but the endpoint and noun are specific enough to avoid confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as xmatters_get_subscriptions, xmatters_add_subscribers, or xmatters_unsubscribe_a_user. The description gives endpoint and parameter information but no context for selection, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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