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

Annotations already mark this as readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it defines a credit as '1 credit = 1 page of bank statement processing' and notes it reports additional operational limits for batch sizing. This enriches agent understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core definition, followed by usage guidance and a clarifying unit, and finally additional context about plan limits. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is efficient and well-organized.

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?

Given there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns (credits and plan limits). It provides enough context for an agent to decide to call it and understand the meaning of the results. No critical information 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 the schema provides no parameter details. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since none exist, and it focuses on the return value, which is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool returns 'remaining Bankstatemently credits — the processing quota, NOT credit/debit transactions,' which precisely defines the resource and avoids confusion with transaction credits. It also explains it reports operational plan limits, giving a specific noun and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_transactions or rate_statement.

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 explicitly lists use cases: 'how many credits do I have, remaining pages, plan limits, quota, how many pages can I upload.' It also clarifies the exclusion: 'NOT credit/debit transactions,' which serves as a when-not-to-use guideline. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the explicit use-case list and negation make selection unambiguous.

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