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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: pagination is cursor-preserving and explicitly 'No wallet changes', reassuring the agent this is a pure read of a ledger.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The enumerated return fields ('signed amounts, source, time, accessible projectTitle and nextCursor') are slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but the text remains tight.

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?

With only two fully documented optional parameters and an output schema, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly, and the description reinforces the read-only ledger semantics. The only missing piece is routing guidance versus the balance-read sibling.

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 limit and cursor are already fully documented in the schema, including the 1–50 range and the default. The description's note that 'pagination preserves the cursor value' adds a small behavioral nuance but no new parameter syntax or constraints.

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 ('Lists the connected customer's ... purchases, spends, refunds and adjustments') and adds scope details ('newest first'). This clearly separates it from the sibling studio_credits_balance_read, which reads a balance rather than an activity ledger.

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 purpose implies when it is useful (auditing credit activity), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling studio_credits_balance_read as the alternative for balance queries. Usage must be inferred.

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