List Credits

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry behavioral information, but it only says 'List credit entries.' It does not disclose side effects, response shape, ordering, or any limitations, though 'list' does weakly imply read-only.

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, direct sentence with no wasted wording and the key action and object are front-loaded.

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 entry is minimal: it states the operation and object but omits when to use this tool, what the returned credit entries look like, whether there is any filtering/ordering, or how it relates to sibling tools like list_expenses/add_credit.

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 schema fully documents the one parameter (limit) with default and description, so the tool description doesn't need to add much. It adds nothing about parameters, but the baseline of 3 applies because coverage is high.

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 'List credit entries' uses a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like list_expenses at a basic level. However, it is almost a restatement of the tool name and adds no detail about scope or filtering.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of a sibling such as list_expenses or search variants, nor any conditions under which it should be called. An agent is left to infer context from the name alone.

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