Get Transaction History

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), and the description adds only the existence of optional filters without deeper behavioral details like pagination policy or result ordering. It is consistent with annotations but not additive.

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 delivers its purpose in one compact sentence and adds a second sentence for the type enum. It is front-loaded and free of filler, though the type list is redundant with the schema.

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 simple read-only list operation with full schema descriptions and optional parameters, the description provides sufficient context for a correct invocation. Without an output schema, some return-format detail is missing, but the tool is straightforward enough to remain 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 description adds no real meaning beyond the structured fields. The phrase 'type, date range, and pagination' only paraphrases the schema, and the listed type values are already present in the enum.

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?

Description states the resource ('transaction history') and identifies the transaction types that distinguish it from order or usage history siblings. It lacks a standalone verb, but the title and context 'history for the account' make the retrieval intent clear.

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 given on when to call this tool vs siblings such as virtualsms_order_history, virtualsms_get_proxy_usage_history, or virtualsms_get_balance. The description does not mention exclusions or preferences, leaving the choice to the agent's inference.

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