cards_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses that numeric ids silently return [], that donor and BCX fields are absent, that from_player/to_player are attribution fields rather than donor provenance, and that results are bounded by 100-row and 256 KB limits and not cached. This goes well beyond a basic read/list description.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, id caveat, response fields, attribution nuance, endpoint semantics, and limits/caching. It front-loads the core operation before diving into caveats, and there is no filler or tautology.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the operation, id semantics, response record fields, field interpretation, response size limits, and caching behavior. It is nearly complete, but the lack of guidance for `limit` and `transfer_types` leaves a small practical gap for an agent constructing a full request.

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 the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It strongly clarifies the critical `id` parameter: 'id is a card UID, not a card_detail_id.' However, it does not explain the semantics or allowed formats of `limit` or `transfer_types`, leaving two of three parameters under-specified.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the transfer records returned by GET /cards/history for one per-instance card UID.' It also explicitly contrasts itself with 'a card-definition lookup or an enumeration of history for a numeric card_detail_id,' which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like cards_get_details and cards_collection.

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 gives clear when-not guidance: 'This route is a per-instance event lookup, not a card-definition lookup or an enumeration of history for a numeric card_detail_id.' It also warns that numeric ids 'silently returned []' versus real UIDs, which guides correct input selection. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool to use when the user needs card-definition lookup or numeric history enumeration.

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