list_recent_charges

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose that the response includes amount, status, and failure reason when applicable, and that charges are scoped to a customer. However, it does not explain ordering, time window, pagination, read-only guarantees, or what 'recent' means, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 entire description is one efficient, front-loaded sentence. It puts the action and resource first, then adds the relevant output facets without any filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple and the description covers the basic return content, but with no annotations, no output schema, and no exclusionary guidance, an agent is missing information about ordering, recency bounds, and how this tool differs from charge-related siblings. It is minimally adequate but not complete.

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 only 50%: customer_id is described, but limit is not. The description does not compensate for this by explaining how limit affects the result, what ordering applies, or how 'recent' is determined. Without extra guidance in the description, an agent must infer the semantics of the undocumented parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lista'), a specific resource ('cargos recientes'), and a target scope ('de un customer') while naming the returning fields: amount, status, and failure reason. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like revenue_summary and get_customer, and even from find_duplicate_charges by focusing on recent charges rather than duplicates.

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 implies the use case: when an agent needs a customer's recent charges with amount, status, and failure reason. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives such as find_duplicate_charges or revenue_summary. The context is understandable but relies on inference.

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