get_credit_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful context that the history covers credit accruals and debits and references the backend operation (whmcs/getcredits), but it does not disclose filtering, ordering, pagination, or account-scoping behavior.

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 front-loads the core resource and includes the backend identifier. It is efficient, though it omits some context that would make the definition more self-sufficient.

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 one-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description gives a minimal but workable picture of what the tool returns. It is not fully complete because it leaves the relationship between the server id and the personal account implicit and offers no contrast with sibling billing tools.

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 schema fully documents the only parameter id as 'ID сервера' with type integer, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning; it also leaves a small ambiguity by describing the resource as a 'personal account' while the parameter points to a server ID.

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 ('Движение средств по лицевому счёту: начисления и списания кредитов') clearly identifies the resource as credit-related account movements and specifies the included data (accruals and debits). It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieves', and it does not explicitly contrast itself with related billing tools such as get_transactions or get_invoices, so it falls short of 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 choose this tool over the many related billing tools in the sibling list (e.g., get_transactions, get_invoices, get_account_info). The description implies the tool returns credit history, but it provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection criteria.

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