List subscription credits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Changes nothing' is essentially a restatement with no added disclosure. The one genuinely useful addition is the return content ('credits given ... and how much is still unspent'), which partially compensates for the absent output schema, but permissions, pagination, and missing-credit behavior are unaddressed.

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?

Three sentences where one suffices: sentence one ('Credits given on a subscription, and what is still unspent') and sentence two ('Returns the credits given on one subscription and how much is still unspent') are near-verbatim duplicates, and sentence three repeats the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 two-parameter read-only query with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description conveys the essential return shape, which is enough to call it. It stops short of disambiguating the singular/plural credit siblings, leaving a real selection gap.

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 description coverage is 100% with only two parameters, so the schema fully documents `id` and `business`. The description's 'one subscription' phrasing weakly corroborates `id` but adds no syntax, format, or scoping detail beyond the schema – baseline 3.

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?

States a clear resource and scope: credits for one subscription plus the unspent remainder. It is understandable without opening the schema, but it does nothing to separate itself from the near-identically named sibling agenta_subscriptions_credit, which is the most likely source of mis-invocation.

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, no prerequisites, no alternatives named. The agent gets no help deciding between this, agenta_subscriptions_credit, agenta_subscriptions_list, or agenta_subscriptions_change_plan; the 'one subscription' phrasing is the only contextual hint.

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