get_stars_transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of inbound/outbound/ascending parameters and contextualizing the data as purchases/expenses. It does not mention return format or rate limits, but with output schema present and read-only hints, this is sufficient.

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 extremely concise: one line for purpose and three bullet-like argument definitions. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then parameter details, making it easy to scan.

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 simple read-only transaction history tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential semantic details. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's function and key parameters. The omission of limit semantics is minor and does not hinder effective invocation.

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 explains inbound ('only refills'), outbound ('only debits'), and ascending ('old first') in plain language, covering 3 of 4 parameters. The 'limit' parameter is not described, but it has a default value in the schema and is straightforward. Overall, the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 identifies the tool as 'История Stars-транзакций' (history of Stars transactions) with a parenthetical about purchases/expenses. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_stars_balance by focusing on transaction history rather than balance. However, it lacks a strong verb (e.g., 'retrieves' or 'lists'), so it is clear but not maximally explicit.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or explicitly state a preferred use case. The purpose is implied by the tool name and description, but there is no direct comparison to sibling tools like get_stars_balance.

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