list_subscriptions

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

The readOnlyHint already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds useful behavioral detail about the returned fields, delivery channels, pending matches, last delivery, and the account-wide delivery_schedule. It still omits details such as ordering or whether all alerts are returned in one response, but it meaningfully exceeds what annotations provide.

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 front-loaded with the main action and then enumerates return fields, so every part is relevant. It is a dense single sentence with parentheticals, which slightly harms readability, but it avoids unnecessary filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return shape, and it does so in detail: ids, names, filter summaries, structured search objects, paused state, channel status, pending matches, last delivery, and delivery_schedule. For a zero-parameter read-only list tool, this is sufficiently complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The empty input schema is consistent with a parameterless list operation, and there are no parameter semantics that the description needs to compensate for.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it lists the person's job alerts and enumerates the settings returned. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as subscription_updates, update_subscription, or unsubscribe, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives like update_subscription or unsubscribe. The listing purpose is clear, but the description does not tell an agent when this tool should be chosen over related subscription tools.

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