Счётчики подписок

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns counts by status, which is the core behavior, but it does not mention whether the counts are global or scoped to a merchant/terminal, whether failed/completed statuses are always present, or any pagination/response shape. For a read-only aggregate tool this is adequate but not rich.

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?

One short sentence that names the resource, the aggregation, and the exact statuses included. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 zero-parameter read-only counts tool, the description is mostly complete: an agent knows what it returns. However, without annotations or an output schema, the description does not specify the response format (e.g., keys like active/completed/failed) or any scoping context, which is a minor gap for an aggregate endpoint.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. The description correctly implies the tool takes no input and simply returns status counts. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns counts of subscriptions grouped by status (active, completed, failed). It is clear enough to distinguish from wata_subscriptions_list, which presumably returns the subscriptions themselves, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 implies this is for getting aggregate counts rather than the full subscription list, and the sibling wata_subscriptions_list exists as the likely alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over wata_subscriptions_list or wata_subscription_get, leaving the routing mostly to inference.

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