billing_history_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'list' and offers no information about side effects, permissions, return format, pagination, or whether the operation is read-only. For a list operation, this is a significant omission; the agent has no expectations about what to expect.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no wasted verbiage, and it is appropriately brief for a simple tool. However, it may be too terse to convey sufficient information, but conciseness itself is well-executed.

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?

Given that this is a list operation with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely underspecified. It does not mention what the billing history contains, how results are ordered, whether pagination exists, or what the response structure looks like. An agent calling this tool would have no expectations about the data returned, which is a major gap.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies to tools with no parameters, as there is nothing for the description to explain. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but given the lack of parameters, this is acceptable.

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 states a specific verb 'list' and a resource 'billing history', clearly indicating its function. It is distinct from siblings like billing_history_create and billing_history_delete, and no other list tool exists for this resource. However, it is minimal and does not elaborate on the contents or scope of the history, which keeps it from being a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While no direct alternatives for listing billing history exist, the description does not mention that it is the sole retrieval method, nor does it provide any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or relationship to other billing tools. This leaves the agent without explicit usage direction.

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