get-tokens-history

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavior — cursor pagination, terminal null cursor, and the underlying endpoint wrapping `syntx.user.getTokensHistory` — but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, ordering, or what a history record contains.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the pagination rule. The wrapper name and raw endpoint path are marginal value for an agent choosing a tool, but they are cheap and aid error diagnosis.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should sketch the return shape, yet it only implies a `next_cursor` field and never says what each history entry contains (model, tokens, cost, timestamp) or the sort order. For a history/listing tool this leaves the agent guessing about results.

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?

At 50% schema coverage the description has to compensate, and it does for the key parameter: it reveals that the cursor value comes from the previous response's `next_cursor`, a link the input schema never states (it only says 'Cursor from the previous page'). `page_size` is left entirely to schema constraints, which are adequate.

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?

"Cursor-paginated token-spend history" names a specific resource and its retrieval mechanism, which an agent can distinguish from get-balance (current balance) and list-token-pricing (rates) without opening the schema. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 explains how to page (pass `next_cursor` while non-null) but never states when to reach for this tool versus get-balance or list-token-pricing, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than specified.

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