Подписки

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral transparency. The description provides no information about what the tool returns, how pagination works, ordering, or any side effects. It merely states a domain phrase and offers no behavioral detail. For a list operation that likely returns many records, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely brief, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness. It provides no structure or front-loaded key information. Every sentence (or phrase) should earn its place; this one communicates only a topic, not a function. A well-structured description would lead with the verb and action, then context.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what is returned (e.g., list of subscriptions, fields, pagination behavior). It does none of this. It is completely inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results. Sibling tools like wata_subscriptions_counts and wata_subscription_get suggest complexity that this description fails to address.

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?

Both parameters (skipCount and maxResultCount) have schema descriptions that fully explain their meaning; schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics. Per rubric, the baseline is 3 since the schema already handles parameter documentation; there is no extra value from the description. It does not clarify, for example, whether maxResultCount has a maximum or default, which the schema already states.

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 'Регулярные списания (подписки) мерчанта.' ('Regular charges (subscriptions) of the merchant') identifies the resource (subscriptions) but does not state the action (list). It essentially restates the title 'Подписки' (Subscriptions) without a verb or instruction. The tool name includes '_list' but the description should stand alone. This lacks the specificity needed to distinguish the operation from sibling tools like wata_subscription_get or wata_subscriptions_counts.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include wata_subscriptions_counts, wata_subscription_get, and wata_subscription_set_status, but the description offers no differentiation. An agent cannot infer whether to use this list operation for pagination, filtering, or other use cases.

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