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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only behavior, admin authorization, immutable timeline, consistency check, and the ability to reconstruct balance at a specific date. However, it omits details like pagination or rate limits.

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 dense but clear paragraph of 3-4 sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently adds details without redundancy. Could be slightly more structured but remains effective.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the output fields (labels, delta, balance, source, author, reference) and behavioral aspects (consistency check, point-in-time). It enables an agent to form correct expectations.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant context for the 'at' parameter (point-in-time balance) and explains the overall query semantics, going beyond the schema descriptions.

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 tool retrieves the complete credit ledger for a user, listing all movements with details and supporting point-in-time balance reconstruction. It distinguishes itself as admin-only and read-only, and the title matches exactly.

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 implies usage for admin auditing by stating 'réservé aux administrateurs' and 'Lecture seule,' but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_credits' or state when to use this versus alternatives.

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