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

The verb 'Get' implies a non-mutating read operation, but there are no annotations to confirm read-only behavior. It provides some value by listing what is returned (ad earnings, fees, cashouts), but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements or any side effects.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the core functionality without fluff. The '[Sell]' prefix is slightly ambiguous and may add unnecessary noise, preventing a perfect score.

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?

The tool is simple and has no output schema, so the description must fill in return expectations. It tells the agent what to expect (balance and ledger entries) but lacks specifics like the number of entries, formatting, or any limitations. This is sufficient for basic use but leaves gaps.

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 zero parameters, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline is 4, and the description adds clarity about the tool's purpose without needing to cover parameter details.

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 'Gets' the credit balance and recent ledger entries, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like buy_credits or request_cashout by focusing on reading financial data.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool to check balance or ledger entries. However, there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or alternatives, such as buy_credits to add funds or request_cashout to withdraw. The guidance is not absent but relies on inference.

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