get_media_subscriptions_by_subscription_id

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail by stating that include_grabs includes active grabs and include_storage triggers storage computation, which implies a potential cost. The explicit GET method also clarifies the operation type 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-loaded with the purpose, followed by the endpoint and argument list. No sentences are wasted; the only minor issue is the docstring-style formatting, which is clear but not especially polished.

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 read-only annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details. It explains every parameter and hints at computational behavior for include_storage. It does not mention common failure cases like unknown subscription IDs, but this is a minor gap for a simple single-resource read tool.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the full parameter burden. It explains all three parameters in plain language: subscription_id as the identifier, include_grabs as an inclusion toggle, and include_storage as a computation flag. It does not specify accepted string values for the boolean-like optional parameters, but it adds meaning beyond the bare 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 opens with 'Get a single subscription', which clearly identifies a specific verb, resource, and singular scope. It also includes the HTTP path, making the operation unambiguous and easy to distinguish from list-style sibling tools like list_media_subscriptions.

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 implies usage when a specific subscription ID is available, and 'single' hints that this is for one item rather than a list. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_media_subscriptions or mention related update/delete alternatives.

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