Get subscription forms

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

Behavioral traits are entirely covered by the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false). The description adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination behavior, auth requirements, or response format. It only states 'Body fields: none' which is redundant given the schema, and provides the endpoint.

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 succinct, with the operation stated up front and the endpoint and reference link appended. It avoids redundant prose, but the reference link could be seen as optional; still, it is compact and efficient.

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 simple list GET with no required parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. The schema covers query parameters, and the endpoint suggests the resource. It lacks an explicit statement about what is returned (e.g., a list), but this is often implicit for such GET endpoints.

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 schema already provides a detailed description of the 'query' parameter, listing documented names and pagination semantics. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional value for parameters beyond what is already documented.

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 'Get' and resource 'subscription forms', and includes the HTTP endpoint for precision. It naturally distinguishes from siblings like xmatters_get_a_subscription_form (singular) and xmatters_get_subscription_forms_in_a_plan via the plural resource and endpoint.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this lists all subscription forms globally, nor does it contrast with plan-scoped or single-item variants. The only context is the endpoint and a reference link, which imply usage but do not explicitly differentiate scenarios.

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