Get request history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the return shape (a paginated list with endpoint, status, credits, timestamp) which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about pagination limits, auth requirements, or retention window.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the use case and filters, with essentially no padding. The trailing fragment 'Account metadata read.' is a slightly odd category tag but not wasteful.

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 four-parameter read/list tool with no output schema, the description covers the return fields, filters, and purpose adequately, and annotations carry the safety profile. Minor gaps remain around pagination limits and the account-selector parameter, but nothing blocks correct 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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description echoes the two filter params (endpoint name, status code) and 'paginated' implies the page param, but adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond the schema, and never mentions the account selector. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Returns a paginated list of your API requests') and enumerates the returned fields (endpoint, status code, credits used, timestamp), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like scrapecreators_get_daily_usage or scrapecreators_get_most_used_routes, which also expose account/usage data.

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?

It offers a purpose context ('useful for debugging and monitoring your API usage') which implies when to reach for it, but never states when to prefer it over the usage/route/credit sibling tools nor any exclusions. The usage signal is implied rather than explicit.

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