get_infra_billing_records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the HTTP route ([READ] GET /api/infra-billing/history), which is mildly useful context but not substantive behavioral detail such as pagination caps or ordering.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, which is good, but the '[READ] GET /api/infra-billing/history' line is largely redundant with the readOnly annotation and restates the tool name rather than adding agent-relevant 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?

For a parameterless-required, read-only list endpoint with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. With no output schema, it could have described the shape or ordering of returned records, but does not.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'size' and 'start' are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('infra billing history'), which is clear. It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling infra-billing tools like get_infra_billing_nodes or get_infra_providers, so an agent must infer scope from the name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of sibling alternatives. The agent gets the resource name but no condition telling it when this is the right call versus another billing tool.

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