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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful details by specifying the entry types (deductions and micro-payments) and implies read-only via 'Returns,' but it does not disclose ordering, time range, or potential side effects. The description gives a basic read operation with some behavioral context, but not comprehensive transparency.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no wasteful words and delivers the core meaning effectively.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain the structure of the returned ledger entries (e.g., fields like amount, timestamp, type). While the tool is simple and the description gives basic context, an agent would be left inferring the return format, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters (agentID, limit) already described in the input schema. The description does not add any extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Returns'), the resource ('recent ledger entries'), and the scope ('deductions and micro-payments', 'for an agent'). This specific wording distinguishes it from sibling tools like wallet_get_balance, which would focus on current balance rather than transaction history.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wallet_get_balance or wallet_get_autopay_threshold. It implies usage for transaction history but does not mention exclusions or name alternative tools for different use cases.

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