neurover_charges

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully clarifies that entries are per-generation cost figures, but says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior despite a 'page' parameter, result size, or account scoping. Given annotation coverage, this is a moderate contribution rather than a rich one.

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?

A single short sentence with the key noun front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity sits close to under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 paginated history endpoint with no output schema and a totally undocumented parameter set, the description leaves too much open: what a record contains, ordering, whether results are account-scoped or global, and how pagination terminates. The one useful addition, the per-generation cost framing, is not enough for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so neither 'page' nor 'account' is documented anywhere. The description adds no meaning to either parameter — not the page size, not whether 'account' is an identifier or a name, not what happens when it is omitted. Baseline 3 applies only because there are just two simple, partially self-evident parameters, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 resource and what it contains: charge history of credits, with a clarifying parenthetical 'how much each generation cost'. This is a concrete verb+resource statement an agent can act on, though it never distinguishes itself from near-siblings such as neurover_balance, neurover_statistics, neurover_audit, or neurover_generations.

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 when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. With many cost/usage-adjacent siblings (balance, statistics, audit, generations, subscriptions), the description never says which one answers which question, leaving the agent to guess from names alone.

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