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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about pagination (page/limit parameters and the pagination object in the response) beyond what annotations provide, so the agent knows how to handle large result sets.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by pagination instructions. It repeats the tool name in the first line, but that is minor. The structure is logical and easy to scan, with no unnecessary fluff.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 params, one required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: the resource scope, pagination handling, and how to detect more pages. It's complete for a read-only list endpoint.

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 clear descriptions for id, page, and limit. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the pagination object and how to check for more pages, which goes beyond the schema's basic parameter definitions.

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 action: listing revenue-charge history for a single customer, and distinguishes it from the sibling listCharges (which likely covers all customers). The phrase 'for one customer' makes the scope explicit, so an agent can immediately tell it apart from other list tools.

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 indicates this is for a single customer's charge history and explains pagination mechanics. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'for one customer' scope provides clear context that implies listCharges would be used for all customers.

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