list_subscriptions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's paginated (though parameters suggest it might be), what the response format looks like, or any rate limits. The description provides zero behavioral context beyond the basic verb.

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?

While technically concise with just two words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide necessary context and doesn't front-load important information. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide enough value.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what subscriptions are being listed, what the response contains, how pagination works, or any behavioral characteristics. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (page, limit, status) having descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'List subscriptions' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful context. It doesn't specify what kind of subscriptions (e.g., user subscriptions, product subscriptions, service subscriptions) or provide any distinguishing characteristics from sibling tools like list_products or list_sales.

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 provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or differentiation from sibling tools like list_products or list_sales that might also list subscription-related data.

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