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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral content by disclosing exactly what the read returns — credits consumed, credits included this billing month, renewal timing, and videos used.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the returned resource before the purpose clause. The parenthetical credit detail is dense but every element maps to real return content, so nothing is wasted.

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?

A no-argument, read-only tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage needs little more than a scope statement, which this provides. The only unstated detail is failure behavior when no profile is linked, a minor omission given the output schema carries the return contract.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter surface for the description to clarify or for the schema to obscure.

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 ('Return') and resource ('the Clypmint profile linked to this request'), and enumerates the payload (credits used/included/renewal, videos used). This is clearly distinct from siblings like get_account_identity or get_project_context, though it never names an alternative to disambiguate explicitly.

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?

The closing clause 'so you can say what a request will use before spending' gives a concrete usage context: consult this before committing credits. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or an alternative sibling, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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