tokportal_list_credit_transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety traits. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotation values. It does not disclose pagination behavior, result ordering, or the effect of date range filters, which would be useful for an agent to understand the tool's runtime behavior.

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 sentence, highly concise, and front-loaded with the verb and resource. No unnecessary words exist. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices some helpful detail, which prevents a perfect score.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and a moderate complexity (paginated list with date filters), the description is incomplete. It does not mention pagination, filtering, or the expected return type. The agent must rely solely on the schema and parameter descriptions, which are not fully sufficient to understand the tool's output or behavior.

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% (all four parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Based on the rubric, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and the description does not improve or detract from parameter understanding.

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 the action ('List') and the resource ('credit transactions'), which matches the tool name. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like tokportal_get_credit_balance or tokportal_get_credit_costs, but it does not elaborate on the scope or type of transactions (e.g., all, paginated, filtered).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling list tools, and the description does not differentiate this tool's purpose (e.g., listing credit transactions with date filters) from others. An agent may be uncertain when to choose this over other list or get tools.

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