get_my_credit_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 read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds that output is paginated and scoped to the connected hunter, but does not mention ordering, transaction types beyond gains/dépenses, or any pagination metadata returned.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource, scope, and pagination behavior with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 simple, has no required parameters, and is well covered by read-only annotations. However, there is no output schema and the description does not describe the shape of each history item or how pagination is represented in the response. An agent can safely invoke it, but may not fully anticipate the returned data.

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 neither page nor page_size has textual documentation. Still, the names, constraints, and defaults are self-explanatory, and the word 'paginé' signals that both parameters control pagination. The description adds conceptual context but does not explicitly explain parameter effects.

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 uses a specific verb ('Liste'), a precise resource ('l'historique paginé des gains et dépenses de crédits'), and a scope ('du hunter connecté'). It clearly differentiates this from sibling get_my_credit_balance because it is a paginated history of credit movements rather than a current balance.

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 intended use is clear from the description: fetch a paginated credit transaction history for the current hunter. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of get_my_credit_balance or other siblings, leaving the distinction to be inferred from names and context.

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