deployment_get_deployment_expense_history_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond repeating the HTTP path: no word on default time window, how interval buckets the data, or whether results are paginated or aggregated.

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?

Short and front-loaded, but the second sentence merely restates the first (returns the expense history with the supplied ID) and the third is just the endpoint template. Two of three sentences carry little unique information.

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?

A read-only lookup with fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety needs little prose, but it never addresses the practical questions an agent would have: what the default range is, what an interval produces, and what the payload shape looks like in the absence of an output schema.

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 100%, so from, to, interval and deploymentId are already documented with formats and an implicit enum for interval. The description mentions only the deploymentId via the path template and adds no new semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (fetch a deployment's expense history) and names the path parameter that identifies it. It does not differentiate from any sibling, but the sibling list contains no other expense-history tool, so the risk of confusion is low.

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 on when to call this versus other deployment read tools (e.g. deployment_get_deployment_by_id, deployment_get_billing_metrics), no prerequisites, and no note that from/to/interval scope the result.

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