sherweb_subscriptions_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions this is a read operation (list), which is clear. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior details, ordering, or what happens with a large result set. Also doesn't clarify whether the response includes total counts for pagination. Acceptable but thin.

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?

Single sentence, gets to the point, no wasted words. Returns a concise summary of what the tool does and what data it returns. Slightly could be improved by front-loading the customer scoping, but overall efficient.

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 list tool with 100% schema coverage and a clear return-value description, this is adequate. The description mentions what fields are returned (product, quantity, status, billing cycle). However, no output schema and limited behavioral context (no mention of pagination semantics or error handling for invalid customerId) leaves some gaps. Comparable to the MID calibration example.

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 100%, so all 3 parameters are documented in the schema (page, pageSize, customerId). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema — it mentions 'billing cycle' is returned but doesn't clarify parameter format or behavior of defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the verb 'List subscriptions' with the resource 'for a customer' and mentions what's returned (product, quantity, status, billing cycle). It's clear about scope being limited to a single customer. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling sherweb_subscriptions_get, which also handles subscriptions.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description doesn't explain that this is the list-all-subscriptions variant while sherweb_subscriptions_get is for a single subscription, or when one would choose pagination parameters. The customerId requirement is implied but no context on prerequisites or when to use the get variant instead.

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