Get newsletter list subscription

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so 'Reads account data' is largely redundant with the safety profile. The one genuinely additive detail is the OAuth scope requirement ('newsletter_lists:read'), which the annotations do not convey; the description omits return shape, error behavior, or account-resolution fallbacks.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler or repetition. The middle sentence ('Reads account data') is the weakest, since it restates the readOnly annotation, but the whole description is still tight and scannable.

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?

With no output schema and no nested objects, the description need not explain return values, and the schema fully documents the three required prefixed IDs. It is minimally adequate for a simple single-object read, but it leaves sibling disambiguation and any return-shape expectation to inference.

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% and all four parameters (including the prefixed-ID patterns and the BEEHIIV_ACCOUNTS fallback for account) are documented in the schema. The description adds no format, syntax, or fallback detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get newsletter list subscription'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it is nearly a verbatim restatement of the tool name/title and does nothing to distinguish it from siblings such as list_newsletter_list_subscriptions, get_newsletter_list, or newsletter_list_subscriptions_update_by_subscription_id.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling read/update tools for newsletter lists and subscriptions. The only conditional statement concerns OAuth scopes, which is an auth prerequisite rather than usage routing, so the agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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