List ledger entries

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

The description adds meaningfully beyond the annotations: it states that every movement type is included, that balances reconcile exactly, and that the response includes balance_after_micros. These are behavioral details not present in the annotations, and they are consistent with readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The core behavioral content is front-loaded, and the scope requirement is clearly stated. 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?

For a simple read-only paginated list with well-documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It describes the returned data field (balance_after_micros) and the universe of entries, though it does not mention ordering, which is a minor 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 input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, including cursor semantics and limit bounds. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable because the schema carries the full burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource (ledger entries) and the action (listing every account movement), and it enumerates the movement types and the balance_after_micros field. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from potentially similar siblings like list_usage_events or get_balance, so it misses the full sibling-differentiation quality.

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?

No guidance is provided about when this tool should be used instead of alternatives such as list_usage_events or get_balance. The only practical instruction is the required `billing:read` scope, which is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline.

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