vipps_payment_history

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so repeating 'read-only' adds no new information. The only added context is the account scoping; nothing is said about pagination behavior, result volume, or what happens when all_pages=true, which is the main behavioral question for this tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first and nothing is wasted.

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 read-only list tool whose safety profile is already carried by annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it names the resource and scope. It falls short on the one thing it should explain — pagination semantics — and there is no output schema to cover return shape.

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?

Both parameters (page, all_pages) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains neither: it doesn't say that page is zero-indexed, how page interacts with all_pages, or whether all_pages overrides paging. With two undocumented parameters, the description should compensate but does not.

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?

States a specific verb (Return), resource (Vipps payment-order history) and scope (signed-in account), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the similarly-named siblings recharge_history/recharge_detail.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The agent must infer from the name that this is the history-listing call rather than one of the recharge/ride siblings.

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