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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals only that the tool is Haven-scoped and aliases my_credits; it says nothing about whether the call is read-only, what auth is required, or what it returns. 'Haven-only' is the single useful behavioral signal.

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 short sentence with no filler and the alias relationship front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than achieving maximum usefulness.

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?

For a trivial one-optional-param alias with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names the canonical tool and environment scope. It stops short of explaining what the agent will get back or why/when to prefer this alias, leaving the agent dependent on my_credits' own definition.

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?

There is one optional parameter (api_key) with 100% schema description coverage, which already documents the Authorization/HAVEN_API_KEY alternatives. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool only by reference ('Alias of my_credits'), which tells the agent it is a duplicate but never states the actual verb+resource being performed. 'ANANSI credits, Haven-only' hints at the subject matter (credit balance) but an agent must infer function from the sibling's name rather than from this text.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given, and no condition for choosing this tool over my_credits (or vice versa) is stated. The 'Haven-only' qualifier implies an environment restriction but not an explicit usage rule or exclusion.

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