get_transaction_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation with the word 'История' (history), but says nothing about pagination behavior, response format, account scoping, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a financial/history tool.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words, front-loads the domain and key qualifier. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though it could have included a bit more context without becoming bloated.

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 tool with 5 params, no output schema, and many history-related siblings, the description is thin. It covers the core purpose and the date scoping, but omits usage guidance and behavioral details. It is minimally viable but not complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the 'period' concept, which loosely informs from_date/to_date, and 'account expenses' but nothing beyond the schema. It neither compensates nor adds meaningful parameter-level guidance.

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 identifies a clear resource ('billing transactions') and scope ('for a period', 'account expenses'). It distinguishes this from call/SMS history siblings by explicitly saying 'billing' and 'расходы аккаунта', though it does not name any sibling.

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 instead of get_call_history, get_sms_history, get_account_info, or other siblings. The description only says what it does, not which situations call for it.

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