Community Member Subscriptions List

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: 'Supports bounded all_pages; every page counts against the API quota.' This goes beyond annotations by disclosing quota consumption and pagination behavior, which is important for a read tool with 24 parameters.

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 three short sentences: a title, a vague statement 'Reads community data', and a note about all_pages and quota. While concise, the middle sentence 'Reads community data' is nearly redundant with the tool name and annotations, and the structure isn't optimally front-loaded with the most critical information (e.g., what the tool returns or how to use it).

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 complexity (24 parameters, no required ones) and the absence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the read-only nature and quota implications but doesn't explain return values, pagination limits beyond all_pages, or how to effectively use the many filters. With annotations and a rich schema, it's passable but leaves gaps in guiding the agent on expected outputs or advanced usage.

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 fully documents all 24 parameters, including pagination and filtering options. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline of 3 is raised because the description complements with behavioral notes about all_pages and quota, indirectly touching on parameter usage.

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 'Community Member Subscriptions List' and 'Reads community data', which identifies the resource (community member subscriptions) and the verb (reads/list). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'export_community_member_subscriptions' or 'list_charges', leaving some ambiguity about its specific scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'export_community_member_subscriptions' or 'list_charges'. It also doesn't specify prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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