acedatacloud_list_auto_recharges

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only states the basic action without disclosing any side effects, permissions, or return behavior. For a list operation, it likely has no side effects, but the description does not explicitly state this, nor does it mention pagination or filtering implications beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It effectively conveys the purpose without redundancy.

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?

The tool is a simple list operation with an existing output schema, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. The parameter schema is complete, and the description correctly identifies the primary scope ('caller-owned'). It is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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%, with all parameters (limit, offset, ordering, application_id) described in the schema. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('auto-recharge configurations'), and the scope ('caller-owned'), which distinguishes it from other auto-recharge tools like get_auto_recharge or create_auto_recharge. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 enumerating caller-owned auto-recharges but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use this over other auto-recharge tools. The sibling names (e.g., get_auto_recharge) provide implied context, but the description itself offers no direct guidance.

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