Get subscriptions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, read-only nature is well covered. The description adds the HTTP method and the absence of a request body, which are minor useful details, but it does not disclose response format, authorization requirements, or rate 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?

The description is short and front-loads the operation, then gives the endpoint and body requirement. The reference link adds a minor extra that is not essential but is not harmful. Overall, every sentence adds a small amount of utility without padding.

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 the simple nature of the tool (no required parameters, strong annotations, and a detailed schema), the definition is mostly adequate. However, it does not explicitly state that the response is a list of subscriptions or that callers must page through results to get all entities, leaving response semantics implied rather than stated.

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 description coverage is 100%: the query parameter's schema description already lists all documented parameter names (owner, subscriber, sharedWith, etc.) and explicitly explains pagination using offset/limit with no automatic result combination. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema carries the full burden.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Get subscriptions') and identifies the exact API endpoint, which is sufficient for an agent to know what the tool targets. However, it does not explicitly say that it returns a list as opposed to a single subscription, leaving differentiation from xmatters_get_a_subscription to be inferred from the plural name.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to use this tool over xmatters_get_a_subscription or how it relates to xmatters_get_subscription_forms, and it gives no conditions for when the query parameters should be used. The agent is left to infer usage from the endpoint and sibling names.

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