billing_list_billing_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the return shape ('Billing history with transaction details') and implies a read-only operation via 'List', but it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, pagination behavior, or date-window semantics. This is adequate for a simple read tool but not rich.

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 compact and well-organized, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by labeled Args and Returns sections. There is no filler or redundant explanation.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and only two optional parameters, so the description covers core invocation needs. However, it lacks guidance on selecting this tool among related billing siblings and gives no detail on pagination or date-range edge cases, leaving some context gaps.

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 compensate. It does explain both parameters meaningfully: 'days: Number of days to include' and 'per_page: Number of items per page', and it restates defaults. This adds semantic value beyond the bare schema, though it does not provide deeper constraints.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List billing history for the specified number of days.' It specifies the scope (days) and hints at the content ('transaction details'), but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from sibling billing tools such as billing_list_invoices or billing_list_invoice_items.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among the many billing siblings, several list-oriented tools exist, and the description does not state what makes billing history the right choice, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools.

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