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

The description discloses cost behavior (0 credits, no charge for empty results/failures) and hints at a caching mechanism. However, it references a 'cache' parameter that does not exist in the schema (additionalProperties: false), which is misleading. It does not describe pagination details or error behavior beyond what the schema implies, but the cost transparency is valuable.

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 conveys multiple pieces of information (purpose, cost, cache behavior). It is concise but slightly dense and could be clearer with line breaks. Overall, it is efficient without 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?

With no output schema, the description provides some context by listing likely return fields (requestId, status, credits, cacheHit). It does not explain pagination beyond the schema's cursor description, nor does it clarify the cache behavior given the missing parameter. The description is adequate but leaves some ambiguity about the cache option and what exactly is returned.

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?

All six parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat them. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters; it only mentions a non-existent 'cache' parameter, which does not help. Baseline is 3 given full schema coverage.

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's purpose: retrieving recent API requests for the user's key, listing key fields like requestId, status, credits, and cacheHit. It is distinct from sibling tools such as account_balance and account_daily_usage, which focus on balance and usage totals rather than individual request 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 some usage guidance, including that the tool costs 0 credits and that empty results/failures are never charged, which reassures the agent about cost. It also mentions a caching option ('Pass cache=true') but this parameter is not present in the schema, which could mislead. No explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives is given, but its distinct purpose implies when it should be used.

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