neurover_subscriptions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on what the page contains, whether it is account-scoped, or what happens with large result sets. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 single fragment is short but under-specified rather than concise; there is no front-loaded statement of action and no structure. Brevity here costs information rather than saving space.

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 two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the definition leaves the agent guessing about pagination and account scoping. For a read-only listing tool the burden is lower, but the description still supplies almost none of what is missing.

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 0% for both parameters, and the description does not compensate at all. "page" (integer, minimum 1) and "account" (string) are left entirely unexplained, including whether "account" is a name, ID, or handle.

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?

"Страница подписок сайта" (the site's subscriptions page) names a resource but no verb or operation, so the agent cannot tell whether it lists, opens, or returns subscriptions. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as neurover_account_overview, neurover_balance, or neurover_charges, which are the plausible alternatives for subscription/billing data.

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, no exclusions, and no mention of any sibling tool. Nothing tells the agent under which circumstances to call this rather than neurover_accounts or neurover_charges.

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