remnawave_infra_billing_list_history

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

The description indicates the tool is read-only via '(read)' but lacks other behavioral details such as pagination, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. With no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices substance. While brevity is appreciated, it fails to provide necessary detail.

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 lack of annotations, incomplete schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to construct a proper request, or any constraints.

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 description adds no meaning to any of the 4 parameters, despite 0% schema description coverage. Parameters like 'payload' and 'confirmToken' remain unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them.

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 'Remnawave infra_billing.list_history (read)' clearly identifies the tool as a read operation to list history records. It distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform create, delete, or update operations on billing entities.

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 on when to use this tool versus other listing tools (e.g., list_nodes, list_providers). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternatives.

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