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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces the non-mutating profile with 'Does not spend credits' while adding pagination behavior and org scoping not present in the annotations. It stops short of disclosing ordering or default-window behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then filters, then the safety note. No filler and no repetition.

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 read-only, zero-required-param listing tool with no output schema, this covers resource, scope, filters, and safety. It would be marginally stronger if it hinted at what a transaction record contains or the default ordering, but nothing critical 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 100% (type, limit, offset, dates, toolSlug all documented), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only restates the filter axes already in the schema, adding no new syntax or format detail; baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List paginated credit transactions') plus the scope ('caller's active organization') and enumerates the record kinds (grants, usage, refunds, purchases). It is clear, but it never names the nearest siblings (get_credit_balance, get_credit_usage_stats), so the agent must infer the boundary from the transaction-type list alone.

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?

'Filter by tool slug, type, or date window' implies the read/ledger-lookup use case, and 'Does not spend credits' hints at a safe inspection context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance against get_credit_balance or get_credit_usage_stats, so routing depends on inference.

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