tokportal_list_credit_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 no additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination behavior, date range interpretation, or ordering), but since annotations cover the core safety aspects, the bar is lowered. The description is acceptable but could add more context about what the list returns (e.g., ordered by date). There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence that states the purpose. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity. Every word earns its place, but adding a note about filtering by date_from/date_to could improve it while still being concise.

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?

Given the 4 parameters with 100% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally complete for a read-only list operation. However, it lacks details about return format (e.g., paginated list, field set), ordering, or edge cases (e.g., empty results). It meets the baseline but does not exceed expectations.

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 schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The tool description itself does not add any new meaning beyond the schema. According to the rubric, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, which is appropriate here. No extra value provided but no gaps either.

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 states "List credit transactions." It identifies the verb (list) and the resource (credit transactions). However, it does not provide detail on the scope (e.g., all credit transactions for the user/account), which would help distinguish it more precisely from siblings like tokportal_get_credit_balance or tokportal_get_credit_costs, though the resource term is unique enough among siblings.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tokportal_get_credit_balance or tokportal_get_credit_costs. The description does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or whether it is for retrieving history versus balances. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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