recharge_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond that: all_pages may issue multiple read-only requests, which signals extra latency/request volume. It says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or result size, so it adds only modest value over the annotations.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The second sentence is terse to the point of being under-developed rather than verbose, which is the opposite failure mode.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is only minimally complete. It covers what is returned and one flag's side effect, but leaves pagination semantics (page vs all_pages interaction) and the distinction from sibling history tools to inference.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It explains all_pages only indirectly ("may make multiple read-only requests") and never mentions the page parameter's paging semantics, so one of the two parameters remains undocumented in both places.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Return pass/recharge purchase history." That is clearly distinguishable in kind from write-oriented siblings like ride_order. However, it does not differentiate itself from the closely named siblings recharge_detail, recharge_month, or vipps_payment_history, which is exactly where a routing hint would matter.

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 statement of when to use this tool rather than recharge_detail, recharge_month, or vipps_payment_history, and no prerequisites or exclusion conditions. The only usage-flavored sentence concerns the all_pages flag, not tool selection.

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