novada_wallet_usage_record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool emits both start_time and a typo'd 'strat_time' for forward compatibility, and specifies authentication requirements, which go beyond annotation contents.

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 concise, well-structured with bold headers for each section (Best for, Not for, Params, Auth), and every sentence adds unique value. No unnecessary repetition.

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 description covers purpose, parameters, pagination, auth, and a behavioral quirk. However, without an output schema, the response shape is not described, which is a minor gap for completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant context beyond schema: clarifies optionality of date parameters with server defaults, page_size maximum, and the dual emission of start_time and strat_time, elevating the score.

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 'Paginated wallet transaction / usage history' and explicitly distinguishes from siblings with 'Best for' and 'Not for' sections, naming alternative tools like novada_traffic_daily and novada_plan_balance_all.

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 explicit when-to-use ('Auditing recent spend, exporting billing rows') and when-not-to-use ('Aggregate by-product spend', 'current balances') with specific alternative tool names, offering clear decision guidance.

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