Get Contact Unsubscription Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral distinction of returning statuses for all emails or a specific email, but does not disclose response shape, pagination, or error behavior. That is acceptable given annotations, but not rich.

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 but contains redundancy: 'Get Contact Unsubscription Status' duplicates the tool title and adds no information. The useful content, 'Get all subscription statuses for a contact (all emails or specific email)' plus the endpoint, is compact but could be cleaner.

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 read-only GET tool with well-documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It clarifies the optional email behavior and result scope, though it could additionally note what a successful response contains. Given no output schema, this is a minor gap rather than a critical one.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds only marginal value by reinforcing the optional email behavior, which is already present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 specific action ('Get') on a clear resource ('subscription statuses for a contact') and clarifies the scope (all emails or a specific email). It is not explicitly differentiated from siblings, but no sibling covers the same resource, so the purpose is nonetheless clear.

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 this tool is for retrieving subscription statuses, and the optional email parameter gives a meaningful usage variation (all emails vs. specific email). However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions.

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