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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint. The description adds substantial behavioral context: team is None for solo users, seats_used vs seats_active meaning, per_member_spend excludes removed members and unattributed charges, and unattributed spend groups by activity label. This goes well beyond the annotation.

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 long but every sentence earns its place by explaining return semantics, aliases, or edge cases. The purpose is front-loaded, and the return structure is compactly presented before deeper caveats.

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?

With no output schema, the description must fully document the return shape, and it does: nested structures, None cases, counting semantics, and non-summation caveats are all covered. For a zero-parameter read-only tool, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden to carry. Per the zero-parameter baseline, the description appropriately spends no space on inputs that do not exist.

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: it retrieves the current Sliq credit balance, 30-day agent spend, and the workspace team block. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling get_* and check_* tools by data domain rather than relying on the name alone.

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 description gives clear context for when this tool is relevant: whenever credit balance, spend by agent, or team seat/credit data is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is specific enough that an agent can route to it confidently.

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