Get Job 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 by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond restating the name — no note on pagination, auth requirements, or whether the job must belong to the caller.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste and the resource/scope front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is also the source of the missing guidance.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should carry some burden for explaining what a transaction record contains or how results are paged. Instead it says nothing about the return payload, and with many sibling credit tools the selection context is thin.

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 all five parameters (jobId, index, nValues, sortColumn, sortDirection) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter format or defaults, 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('credit transactions') scoped to a specific job, which is clearer than a bare name. However, it does not distinguish itself from credit-related siblings such as transkribus_credit_get_transactions or transkribus_credit_get_package_transactions, leaving the job-scoped vs account-scoped distinction to inference.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus the other credit transaction tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must guess that the 'job' framing is the differentiator.

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