List subscribers

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 the safety profile is fully covered by structured fields. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't mention pagination behavior, page-size handling, sorting, or result truncation, which are the real behavioral traits an agent would need for a 17-parameter list tool.

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?

It is short, but the second sentence earns no place and the whole is under-specified rather than concise. Nothing meaningful is front-loaded beyond the tool name being restated.

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 17-parameter tool with 18% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should carry substantial weight on filtering, pagination, and return shape. Instead it provides two sentences of content, none of which helps an agent call the tool correctly.

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 only 18%, so the description must compensate — and it does not mention a single parameter. Key semantics like the 'slim' flag, 'include' expansions, date-range filters, sort fields, and the all_pages/max_items truncation contract are left entirely to the thin schema, which documents only three of seventeen parameters.

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 first sentence states a clear verb+resource ('List subscribers'), but the second sentence 'Reads account data' is vague filler that does not describe the resource being listed and borders on misleading, since subscribers are not account data. There is no differentiation from the many sibling listing tools (search_subscribers, filter_subscribers, list_subscribers_for_form, list_subscribers_for_tag) despite them being obvious alternatives.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. Nothing tells the agent how this differs from filter_subscribers or search_subscribers, or when each filtering parameter family applies. 'Reads account data' is not usage guidance.

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