Show Billing History

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: currency is USD, refunds are negative, and dates use YYYY-MM-DD format. It does not disclose pagination behavior or how `limit` and `cursor` interact.

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 three efficient sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding date/currency details. Every sentence contributes useful information with no obvious fluff.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a tool with five parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the missing explanation of `limit` and `cursor` leaves a notable gap in invocation guidance.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining all five parameters. It explains `kind`, `since`, and `until` meaningfully, but says nothing about `limit` or `cursor`, leaving critical pagination parameters undocumented.

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 and resource: 'Show money movements', and explicitly distinguishes two modes (`kind` "credit" vs "earnings"). It also differentiates from the account tool for balance checks, though it does not distinguish itself from the sibling transactions tool.

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 gives clear usage context for the two `kind` values and explicitly redirects agents to the account tool for current balance. It does not specify when to use this tool over the sibling transactions tool, but the main alternative is named.

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