ClockNext: list credits

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the return fields and a use case but no additional behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or permission requirements. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. The first sentence states exactly what the tool does, and the second gives a practical use case. No redundant or irrelevant words.

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?

This is a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter. The description covers the return fields, the purpose, and a concrete use case. Combined with the annotations and full schema coverage, it provides all necessary context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 sole parameter 'active' is fully documented with its meaning ('Only return active credits when true; omit to return all'). The description adds no extra parameter-specific semantics beyond listing the resource, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List' with a clear resource ('the organisation's credit types') and enumerates the fields returned. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_credit (singular fetch) and create/update/archive by focusing on listing. The added use case for finding a credit id to reference in a plan's CREDIT component further sharpens its purpose.

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 explicitly provides a usage context: 'Use it to find a credit id to reference from a plan's CREDIT component.' This gives clear guidance on when to invoke the tool, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., when needing a single credit, use get_credit).

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