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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: the exact GET endpoints, that "both cost 0 credits," that a valid SOCIALCRAWL_API_KEY is required, and the ledger semantics including upfront holds being refunded down. This goes well beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 two dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then delivers endpoint details, use-case guidance, cost, and authentication requirements in a compact, readable structure.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description covers what each view returns, when to use each, cost, authentication, and the purpose of the ledger. The schema covers pagination details via cursor and limit, so nothing essential for calling the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the view switch and how request_id relates to confirming actual metered charges, but it does not add additional semantics for limit or cursor beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a clear, specific action: "Check the credit balance and the credit ledger for the authenticated SocialCrawl account." It additionally names the two underlying endpoints, making the tool's scope unmistakable and easily distinguishable from siblings like socialcrawl_request or socialcrawl_pricing.

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 clearly explains when to use the balance view versus the transactions view, especially for "dispute-grade itemised receipts" and confirming what a metered endpoint actually charged. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling tools, but the siblings are functionally distinct enough that the internal view guidance is the main decision point.

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