list_roi_interactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose real traits: agent_id is mandatory, page_size is hard-capped at 100, and the rows carry a computed cost_usd. It omits auth requirements, how paging/ordering behave, and what happens at the cap (truncation vs error).

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler; the identity of the resource and its relation to the ROI analyses come first, followed by constraints. Nothing repeats the schema and nothing padding is present.

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?

For a six-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential required filter, the time-window semantics, and the page-size cap. It still leaves the agent guessing on pagination controls (page, order) and on what a row looks like beyond the cost_usd field.

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, and it does document four of six parameters: agent_id (required), since/until (RFC3339 bounding interaction_time), and page_size (capped at 100). However, page and order are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so coverage is incomplete.

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 (List) plus resource and scope (one agent's raw LLM interaction rows, with computed cost_usd), and frames it as the underlying source data for the ROI analyses. That framing helps separate it from the nearby list_llm_interactions sibling, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Use is implied rather than stated: the clause 'the source data the ROI cost-optimization analyses read' suggests reaching for this when you want the raw rows behind an ROI analysis. There is no explicit when-to-use rule, no prerequisite guidance, and no alternative routed to (e.g. list_llm_interactions), leaving the agent to infer.

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