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

Annotations already establish safe read-only, idempotent behavior, so the bar shifts to added context. The description adds concrete behavioral details: endpoints are paginated, at most 30 records per page, and the pagination object should be inspected to decide whether to continue fetching.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the only essential behavioral guidance. The redundant 'List Charges' opener is minor, and every substantive sentence earns its place.

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 full parameter documentation, a rich output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. The only small gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from the closely related listCustomerCharges sibling, though the 'authenticated project' scope largely covers this.

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 the schema already fully documents page, limit, date_to, and date_from. The description only restates page/limit semantics and the 30-record cap, adding no meaningful meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('revenue charge rows for the authenticated project'), with a clear scope qualifier ('authenticated project') that differentiates it from customer-scoped siblings like listCustomerCharges. The optional calendar bounds are also named, making the operation 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 clearly conveys when this tool applies: listing project-level revenue charges, optionally bounded by charged-at dates. It gives explicit pagination usage context but does not mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer listCustomerCharges.

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