ClockNext: get credit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the response includes 'pricing, token mapping and active state', giving useful behavioral context about the return content. However, it does not disclose error handling or any additional side effects, though none are expected for a read operation.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then specifies the key returned fields. Every word earns its place and there is no wasted verbiage.

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 has no output schema, so the description compensates by listing the content of the response (pricing, token mapping, active state). It gives a clear picture of what the caller can expect. It could be more complete by mentioning the response shape or potential errors, but for a simple get-by-id read operation, this is adequate.

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% and the single parameter 'id' is documented as 'The credit id.' The description only reiterates 'by id' without adding extra semantic detail such as format, source, or validation rules. Thus the schema carries the weight, and the description adds marginal value.

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 uses a specific verb 'get' with a specific resource 'credit type' scoped by 'id', and explicitly lists the content returned: pricing, token mapping, and active state. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like clocknext_list_credits (list all) and clocknext_get_customer (different resource).

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 implies its use case: retrieving a single credit type by ID, contrasting with listing all credits. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., clocknext_list_credits) or any prerequisites. The context is clear but without explicit exclusions.

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