List account transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, so the trailing 'Read-only' is mild repetition, but the description adds genuinely valuable traits: newest-first ordering, inclusion of a debit/credit summary over the filtered set, and the stateless-pagination contract (nothing persisted between calls). This is meaningful behavior beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover result size or rate limits.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the filter list. Every clause carries information, though the filter enumeration reads as a run-on that could be tightened slightly.

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 an 11-param, no-output-schema read tool this is close to complete: the description surfaces the summary aggregate that the schema cannot express, explains the two pagination conventions, and documents date semantics. Missing only minor items such as default page size or the shape of the returned summary.

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?

With only 55% schema coverage, the description compensates well: it clarifies from_date/to_date inclusivity and the dual 'whole UTC day vs ISO timestamp with offset' semantics that the schema pattern alone does not convey, and it names every remaining filter (type, status, currency, reference_type, description/reference substring, transaction_id, page/per_page or limit/offset). Some filters like status and currency get no added meaning beyond their names.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List this Vobiz account's billing ledger') and enumerates the record types returned (call charges, number rentals, recharges, adjustments), which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_account_balance and list_call_records. The ordering ('newest first') and summary behavior are stated up front.

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?

Gives clear operating context: filters available, the requirement to send pagination on every call ('stateless... Nothing is saved between calls'), and routes reference_type lookups to the list_transaction_types sibling. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_account_balance for a balance question, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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