getResellerCreditLogs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds useful behavioral context: pagination, reverse-chronological ordering, and inclusive date filters. These details go beyond the structured annotations, providing a clear picture of 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and packed with specific details (paginated, reverse-chronological, inclusive dates) without any redundant fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the low complexity, complete input schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description fully covers the tool's behavior and return value. It explains pagination, ordering, and date filtering, which is sufficient for a historical log retrieval tool. No output schema exists, but the description describes what is returned.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that date filters are inclusive, which is not fully explicit in the schema (e.g., date_from says 'from this date' but not 'inclusive'). This extra semantic clarification justifies a score above baseline.

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 the tool returns a paginated history of credit transfers and reverts for the reseller account, with specific behavioral details like reverse-chronological order and inclusive date filters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like transferCreditsToChild or listCallLogs.

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 implies usage: when you need credit transfer history. It clearly scopes to reseller account credit logs but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Context is clear though no direct comparison with sibling tools is provided.

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