get_user_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 provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether results are paginated (though cursor parameter suggests it might be), rate limits, or what format the output takes. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the minimal action statement.

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 maximally concise - a single 6-word sentence that states the core action. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but does have an output schema, the description is insufficient. While the output schema may document return values, the description fails to explain key aspects: what 'subscriptions' means in this platform context, how it differs from similar relationships, parameter purposes, or behavioral characteristics. For a tool with undocumented parameters in a crowded namespace, more context is needed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters, the description provides zero information about any parameters. It doesn't mention user_id (the required parameter), count (with its default of 100), or cursor (suggesting pagination). The schema must carry all parameter documentation burden with no assistance from the description.

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 'Retrieves users a user is subscribed to' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'get_user_subscriptions' with minimal elaboration. While it indicates a retrieval action, it doesn't specify what 'subscribed to' means in this context or distinguish this from similar tools like 'get_user_following' or 'get_user_followers'.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_user_following', 'get_user_followers', 'get_list_members', and 'get_user_lists', there's no indication of how 'subscriptions' differ from these other relationships or when this specific tool is appropriate.

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