sym_credits

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context—'Live' indicates real-time data, and 'price actually charged per task' and 'expected next refill' clarify the nature of the ledger. However, it never explicitly states whether this is a read-only/check operation or whether invoking it affects the credit balance, which is material for a credits-related tool.

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 tightly packed sentence followed by a four-word usage directive. Every phrase adds information—what is returned, the live nature, and when to call it—with no filler or redundancy.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main return categories and provides actionable timing. It could be more complete by explicitly stating that it is a read-only query and how 'limit' shapes the ledger, but the missing parts are largely covered by schema or are minor.

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%, so the input schema already fully documents the single optional 'limit' parameter. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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 clearly identifies the resource (Symphony credit account) and enumerates specific data it exposes: balance, weekly grant/spent, tier, available models, recent ledger with actual charged price, and next refill. It lacks an explicit imperative verb like 'get' or 'list' and does not name a sibling to distinguish itself from, so it falls just short of a top score.

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?

It gives explicit operational timing: 'Use before batches and after failures.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate. It does not state when not to use it or mention an alternative sibling, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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