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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Check' is consistent with that. It adds the useful detail that both balance and usage are reported, but does not mention response shape, units, or rate-limit/reset behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile, the added context is adequate but not extensive.

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?

One short sentence with no filler. The key action and resource are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 simple read-only balance and usage check with zero required parameters, the description is nearly sufficient. The lack of an output schema means the agent may not know the exact response fields, but the tool's purpose is clear enough to invoke and interpret in most cases.

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%, and the only parameter is an optional raw JSON passthrough with no typed fields. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but no required parameters exist and the tool appears callable without arguments, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('Peerlytics API credit balance and usage'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like peer_balance, but the 'credit' and 'usage' scope narrows the meaning clearly.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as peer_balance or other market tools. There are no stated exclusions or conditions that would help an agent choose this over a sibling.

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