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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that data is read from 'the books' (historical records) and describes the returned fields (order, kept, first/last done). It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or whether it has side effects, though listing implies read-only. It adds some behavioral context beyond the name, but could be clearer about mutation potential.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing filtering options. It is concise and avoids redundant phrasing. The structure is efficient, with the primary function stated first and parameters summarized in the second sentence.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description does a decent job of covering the tool's purpose, return content, and key filter/order options. It misses details on pagination (limit/offset) and exact output format, but it provides enough for an agent to call the tool correctly for common queries. The description is fairly complete for a list tool of this type.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'family' parameter by listing valid values (work, broker, buyer, sell, judge, games) and the 'order' parameter with valid options (last, first, best, times, steps). However, it leaves 'limit' and 'offset' unexplained, which are common pagination parameters but not described. Partial compensation, but not comprehensive.

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 tool lists earning patterns ('ways agents have actually earned money here') with a specific unit ('one entry per distinct shape of steps'). It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by focusing on earnings history rather than chains, disputes, or games. The verb 'list' and resource are explicit, making it unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. It mentions filtering and ordering but does not suggest a use case or contrast with other list tools like list_chains or list_disputes. An agent would have to infer when to choose this tool based on the resource name.

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