tokportal_list_credit_transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe idempotent read behavior. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., pagination behavior, what constitutes a transaction, or any side effects). With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description could still benefit from noting pagination boundaries or date range 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 extremely concise (two words), which aids quick scanning. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is so minimal that it does not earn its place as a full description; an additional sentence could improve completeness without harming conciseness. Still, it avoids any verbosity.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, pervasive sibling tools), the description is materially incomplete. It does not explain what a credit transaction is, what the response will contain, pagination semantics, or how the date filters interact. Since there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at return structure.

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 (page, date_to, per_page, date_from) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning or usage guidance for these parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it further.

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 'List credit transactions' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (credit transactions). While it distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'tokportal_get_credit_balance' and 'tokportal_get_credit_costs' by indicating a list operation, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., all transactions or filtered). The purpose is clear but not enriched beyond the tool name.

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. Sibling tools include related credit endpoints but no comparison or context (e.g., 'Use this to paginate through credit transactions; for balance use get_credit_balance'). The description is a bare statement with no situational advice.

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