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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: free-tier rows are excluded, ordering is newest-first by payment date, and amounts are in cents of the transaction currency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, no filler. Slightly scattered ordering-wise with the currency note last, but every sentence adds information.

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?

No output schema exists, and two of three parameters go undocumented in both schema and description, plus no hint on how many results 'recent' returns. The core semantics are captured, but an agent cannot fully parameterize the call from this definition.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet only app_id is explained ('optionally scope by app_id'). limit and include_samples are never mentioned, leaving the agent to guess pagination size and what samples mean.

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 paid transactions), and adds distinguishing scope: excludes free-tier rows, newest first by payment date. This differentiates it from revenue_summary and list_recent_cancellations without naming them explicitly.

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?

'Use to review recent sales activity' implies the use case but never states when to prefer this over revenue_summary, revenue_by_app, or list_recent_cancellations, nor any preconditions. Adequate but leaves routing to the agent's inference.

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