spraay_compute_futures_history

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by stating the cost ($0.002 per call) and clarifying it returns a 'Full usage ledger', which is useful context beyond annotations.

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 short (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, it could be more structured with clear sections. It is concise but omits potentially important details.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (but not shown in the input), the description is somewhat self-contained. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., array of ledger entries) or any limitations like pagination. The cost and read-only flag are helpful, but more completeness would improve the agent's understanding.

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% but only provides trivial descriptions ('id parameter', 'limit parameter'). The tool description does not clarify the meaning or expected values of 'id' (e.g., what ID is required) or 'limit' (e.g., max records). The instruction 'Pass the listed fields directly as typed arguments' adds no semantic value.

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 clearly states 'Full usage ledger' and 'Read-only', indicating it retrieves a complete history of compute futures usage. The name 'compute_futures_history' aligns with this purpose, and it is distinct from siblings like 'compute_futures_balance' and 'compute_futures_execute'.

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 mentions cost and read-only nature but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not address scenarios where other history or ledger tools might be more appropriate.

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