Get Subscriber

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds useful context by specifying what the response contains: tags, custom fields, and channel data. This is especially valuable because no output schema is provided.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the main action and includes relevant response details with no filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup tool, the description covers what the tool does, how it is identified, and what the response will include. There is no output schema, so the explicit mention of included subscriber data is sufficient for an agent to call this 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?

The only parameter, subscriber_id, is fully described in the schema as 'ManyChat subscriber ID'. The description restates that lookup is 'by ID' but does not add any new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Get full subscriber info by ID'. It also names key data included (tags, custom fields, channel data), making the tool's purpose distinct from sibling lookup tools like manychat_find_subscriber.

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 phrase 'by ID' clearly indicates this is the correct tool when a subscriber ID is already known, and it implies alternatives like find_subscriber or find_by_field are for locating subscribers without an ID. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name an alternative.

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