Get Credit Transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations—no pagination behavior, return shape, or permission requirements are described.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise, though the terseness contributes to missing context elsewhere.

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 read-only transaction retrieval tool with five parameters and many similar siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify scope (all collection transactions vs. history vs. list) or mention required collId and pagination/sorting options, all of which are needed to select and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter (collId, index, nValues, sortColumn, sortDirection) has a schema description. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?

Specific verb 'Get' and resource 'credit transaction records for a collection' are clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like transkribus_coll_credit_history, transkribus_coll_credit_list, and transkribus_credit_get_transactions, so an agent cannot tell which to use without opening schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no exclusions. The description only implies it is for retrieving collection credit transactions; it does not say when to prefer it over similar credit-history or listing tools.

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