List charges

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses recency, platform vs. connected-account scoping, and that destination, application fee, and attached transfer appear in results. However, it omits whether the operation is read-only, how pagination works, and the exact shape of the returned list.

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?

Two sentences and roughly 30 words deliver the essential scope and output highlights with no filler. The most important conditional behavior is front-loaded, and the output-field 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?

For a simple two-parameter listing tool, this is close to sufficient: the account_id condition is clear and the output highlights are stated. But with no output schema and no annotations, the description should also clarify the result list shape and the pagination or ordering implied by 'recent' to be fully self-contained.

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?

The description adds real meaning to account_id by explaining that it selects a connected account and returns direct charges, which the schema's pattern alone does not convey. However, since schema description coverage is 0%, and limit is not explained in the description, the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.

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 identifies the resource (charges) and the key scope distinction: platform-wide charges by default, or a single connected account's direct charges when account_id is provided. The title supplies the verb, making the purpose unambiguous, but the description does not explicitly contrast this with sibling list tools such as stripe_list_transfers.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives like stripe_list_transfers, stripe_list_payouts, or stripe_balance. The only usage hint is the conditional account_id behavior, which is parameter-level guidance rather than tool-selection guidance.

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