Account transaction history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: newest-first ordering, the fields returned (amount, PID-naming description, receipt link), and that timestamps are Moscow time — a non-obvious detail an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero filler. The resource and its contents are front-loaded, and the timezone and pagination notes follow in the order an agent needs them.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well by naming the fields returned. Annotations cover the read-only profile. Only minor gaps remain (no explicit note on empty history or whether offset past the end returns an empty page).

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents limit and offset. The description only adds the ordering nuance that offset skips the newest operations, which is marginal but not nothing; baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Lists balance operations') and enumerates the operation types (top-ups, purchases, renewals, refunds), which separates it from the closest sibling get_balance. It never names an alternative tool explicitly, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'Page with offset' tells the agent how to iterate results, which is genuine usage guidance. However, there is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus get_balance, nor any exclusions, so usage is only implied.

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